# "Maybe I'm Wrong About Guns"



## basquebromance (Sep 20, 2021)

watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 20, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!


Might just do that. Thanks


----------



## cnm (Sep 20, 2021)

Many if not most of the points she made that were generally true were denied for a specific circumstance and then that specific circumstance was treated as general. But then the guy was an ammosexual, he wasn't able to debate in policy terms. For instance, he pretty much dismissed statistics out of hand. I'm amazed the audience was not more discerning.

To the rest of the world firearms homicides in the US are as puzzling as the rate of Covid fatalities there. We can see people choosing to believe a fantasy over a demonstrable reality. It's amazing.

'Murica, eh?

edit...Oh, full disclosure, I only skimmed the second proposition, I'd seen how the game was played.


----------



## Votto (Sep 20, 2021)

Safety vs. Freedom

The safest place in the world is an empty jail cell.  In addition, you get:

1.  free health care

2.  Free food

3.  Free shelter

4. Free clothing

5.  And every day is gay pride day.

I prefer freedom, but to those on the left, jail is our utopia.


----------



## lg325 (Sep 20, 2021)

Just watching the news and there was a mass shooting in a  University in Russia.  A country with strict gun laws  still has violent gun crime. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                               At least 8 killed in mass shooting on Russian university campus


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 20, 2021)

Just watched the first few minutes, but might watch the rest later. I found it rediculous when he, like so many gun nuts here claimed that those wanting reasonable gun regulation didn't know anything about guns. It was funny when he said the forefathers would have certainly known how much gun technology would advance, and gave the puckle gun as an example of a fully automatic gun of that time.  He didn't bother to mention the puckle gun was capable of only 9 rounds per minute.


----------



## Votto (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Just watched the first few minutes, but might watch the rest later. I found it rediculous when he, like so many gun nuts here claimed that those wanting reasonable gun regulation didn't know anything about guns. It was funny when he said the forefathers would have certainly known how much gun technology would advance, and gave the puckle gun as an example of a fully automatic gun of that time.  He didn't bother to mention the puckle gun was capable of only 9 rounds per minute.


Too bad most don't know guns as well as Joe Biden, our fearless leader who lives in the basement.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 20, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Just watching he news and there was a mass shooting in a  University in Russia.  A country with strict gun laws  still has violent gun crime. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                               At least 8 killed in mass shooting on Russian university campus


Does that reasoning work across the board? Are our food safety laws a waste of time too?
Just watching the news and there was a mass recall of 52,022  pounds of chicken products in the US. .  A country with strict poultry laws  still has dangerous chicken. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                              At https://bestlifeonline.com/news-chicken-recall/


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 20, 2021)

Votto said:


> Too bad most don't know guns as well as Joe Biden, our fearless leader in the basement.


Twinkle toes Biden is a complete idiot that lives in some kind of twilight zone when it comes to reality. Anyone listening to the guy has got to be just like him. So here we are in the twilight zone having to find our way out after we were dragged here against our will's.


----------



## Votto (Sep 20, 2021)

beagle9 said:


> Twinkle toes Biden is a complete idiot that lives in some kind of twilight zone when it comes to reality. Anyone listening to the guy has got to be just like him. So here we are in the twilight zone having to find our way out after we were dragged here against our will's.


When you never have to answer questions or answer to anyone, you can live in whatever dream world you wish.

Thank the media and a government without anymore checks and balances.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 20, 2021)

Votto said:


> Too bad most don't know guns as well as Joe Biden, our fearless leader in the basement.


Not sure what that video says about what Joe knows about guns. Seems that the gun nuts making that video should have known better than to allow such unsafe use of guns.


----------



## lg325 (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Does that reasoning work across the board? Are our food safety laws a waste of time too?
> Just watching the news and there was a mass recall of 52,022  pounds of chicken products in the US. .  A country with strict poultry laws  still has dangerous chicken. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                              At https://bestlifeonline.com/news-chicken-recall/


Not across the board. In some issues  education and common sense laws is a better option.


----------



## Votto (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Not sure what that video says about what Joe knows about guns. Seems that the gun nuts making that video should have known better than to allow such unsafe use of guns.


Not sure what is funnier, that video or this post.

Hilarious!


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 20, 2021)

Votto said:


> When you never have to answer questions or answer to anyone, you can live in whatever dream world you wish.
> 
> Thank the media and a government without anymore checks and balances.


Yes the media could have, and should have reduced Biden to being unqualified to becoming President in the eyes of the voters, and justifiably so, but due to a take over of media by hostile forces towards America, we got what we got.

Oh and on a side note, is anyone tired of the child speak or childish voice AOC uses when talking down to American's yet ?? Listen to her, she talks with some kind of childish sounding voice when she talks, and yet she gets mileage somehow out of it ??? You have got to be kidding me right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 20, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!


A transcript would be nice.  Can't find one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 20, 2021)

cnm said:


> To the rest of the world firearms homicides in the US are as puzzling as the rate of Covid fatalities there.


Funny you should place the two issues side by side.
1 gun out of every 40,000 guns in the US is used to commit murder.
If 1 out of every 40,000 people who tested positive from covid died from it, no one would have noticed the disease.


cnm said:


> We can see people choosing to believe a fantasy over a demonstrable reality. It's amazing.


Indeed - fantasies like "American';s gun violence epidemic" and "European gun laws work".


----------



## airplanemechanic (Sep 20, 2021)

How do you get Joe Biden to like guns?

Strap one to the head of an 8 year old girl.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 20, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Just watching the news and there was a mass shooting in a  University in Russia.  A country with strict gun laws  still has violent gun crime. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                               At least 8 killed in mass shooting on Russian university campus



The Kazan shooting....the latest...but....


If you go to the BBC, they link to another shooting in Russia, in Perm.....6 killed, 28 injured....that doesn't include the shooting in Kerch, Russia, where 20 were killed and 70 injured....

Neither the Perm or Kerch shooting used a rifle......shotguns....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Does that reasoning work across the board? Are our food safety laws a waste of time too?
> Just watching the news and there was a mass recall of 52,022  pounds of chicken products in the US. .  A country with strict poultry laws  still has dangerous chicken. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                              At https://bestlifeonline.com/news-chicken-recall/




And when guns are made with a flaw, they too are recalled, you gun grabbing asshat.........


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 20, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Just watching the news and there was a mass shooting in a  University in Russia.  A country with strict gun laws  still has violent gun crime. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                               At least 8 killed in mass shooting on Russian university campus



In the U.S. we have 330 million people.

In 2019 there were 12 mass public shootings....12 individuals out of 330 million.

They killed a total of 73 people.

Each year deer kill 200 people.

Ladders kill 300 people.

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.

Cars killed over 39,000 people.

Yet somehow we are to believe that with 600 million guns in private hands, and over 19.4 million Americans who can legally carry guns in public for self defense...that we must ban these guns because of mass public shootings.......

This is why we don't trust gun grabbers.....


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 20, 2021)

Gun grabbers need an amendment. Full stop.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 20, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate


Hardly ‘amazing’ – it’s more of the same ignorance and idiotic sophistry:

Hasty generalization fallacies

_Post hoc_ fallacies

Confirmation bias fallacies

False comparison fallacies

What’s remarkable about the gun ‘debate’ is that both sides are equally wrong.

More firearm regulatory measures isn’t the solution.

No one is trying to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> like so many gun nuts here claimed that those wanting reasonable gun regulation didn't know anything about guns.


True.

Those who support Constitutional regulatory measures are gunowners and knowledgeable about guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Not sure what that video says about what Joe knows about guns. Seems that the gun nuts making that video should have known better than to allow such unsafe use of guns.


It doesn’t ‘say’ anything – just more rightwing idiocy.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 20, 2021)

airplanemechanic said:


> How do you get Joe Biden to like guns?
> 
> Strap one to the head of an 8 year old girl.
> 
> View attachment 541802


It could be worse

Old joe could be fondling boys


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 20, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> It could be worse
> 
> Old joe could be fondling boys




The rule used to be a dead girl or live boy would derail a democrat political career......that doesn't seem to apply anymore...


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The rule used to be a dead girl or live boy would derail a democrat political career......that doesn't seem to apply anymore...


True

I expect dems to soon add decriminalizing pedophilia to the party platform


----------



## Likkmee (Sep 20, 2021)

Votto said:


> Too bad most don't know guns as well as Joe Biden, our fearless leader who lives in the basement.


Is there a shooting range in his basement? Stallone has one


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is trying to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ guns.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True.
> Those who support Constitutional regulatory measures are gunowners and knowledgeable about guns.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Sep 20, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> It could be worse
> 
> Old joe could be fondling boys



He would be referring to them by their different calibers.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 20, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie.


Exactly right, because all one has to do in order to gauge it all, is to look at the leftist agenda's, where as they know good and well that to push the agenda's that they are pushing, that a serious push back will take place in America. 

So serious that they think that guns in the hands of those that will seriously push back against their agenda's scares them to death. I can still do math, and 2+2 still equals 4.

No one wants any war or problem's, but people are real protective of their families, their religions, and their cultures. If all of it comes under attack in the public square, then they want nothing to do with the public square, and if they are followed to their place of safety away from it all, and they are followed because the government wants them to participate for the revenue aspects involved (keeping the public sector strong), then it makes them feel trapped into obeying forces that they don't agree with. Somehow it all needs to be worked out for the betterment of everyone involved.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 20, 2021)

beagle9 said:


> Exactly right, because all one has to do in order to gauge it all, is to look at the leftist agenda's, where as they know good and well that to push the agenda's that they are pushing, that a serious push back will take place in America.


They - openly- tell us they wan to ban guns, and confiscate guns,
It's impossible to honestly state otherwise.
Thus, he lies.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Just watched the first few minutes, but might watch the rest later. I found it rediculous when he, like so many gun nuts here claimed that those wanting reasonable gun regulation didn't know anything about guns. It was funny when he said the forefathers would have certainly known how much gun technology would advance, and gave the puckle gun as an example of a fully automatic gun of that time.  He didn't bother to mention the puckle gun was capable of only 9 rounds per minute.


The Founders knew about rifles muskets, which improved accuracy and increased range.

They knew about percussion primers, which increased reliability.

They knew firearms had gone from matchlocks to more modern firearms.

They knew firearms technology would progress and firearms would become more efficient.

To say they didn't know is highly intellectually dishonest.

No, your average gun controller doesn't know much about guns, because most of them think AR's fire a magical tumbling bullet that's the most lethal round in firearms history .


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is trying to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ guns.


Bullshit


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Founders knew about rifles muskets, which improved accuracy and increased range.
> 
> They knew about percussion primers, which increased reliability.
> 
> ...


To portray the puckle gun as a fully automatic rifle as we think of fully automatic rifles is highly intellectually dishonest. A puckle gun could only be described as a semi automatic gun, at best, even with stretching credulity. A majority of NRA members want universal background checks. Lots of knowledgable, responsible gun owners want background checks.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> To portray the puckle gun as a fully automatic rifle as we think of fully automatic rifles is highly intellectually dishonest. A puckle gun could only be described as a semi automatic gun, at best, even with stretching credulity. A majority of NRA members want universal background checks. Lots of knowledgable, responsible gun owners want background checks.



No one said the Pickle gun was automatic.  Only that the Founders understood that firearms technology wasn't going to end with muzzleloaders.

There's no majority of gun owners that want universal background checks.  Y'all need to stop telling that lie.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 21, 2021)

I'm not wasting an hour

Why don't you bullet point it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> There's no majority of gun owners that want universal background checks.  Y'all need to stop telling that lie.


If he stopped lying, he'd never post.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No one said the Pickle gun was automatic.  Only that the Founders understood that firearms technology wasn't going to end with muzzleloaders.


And, let's be clear:
George Washington, et al, would, in no uncertain terms, fully support the idea that every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, have an AR15 above their transom and 10 loaded 30rd magaxines in their cartridge box.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> To portray the puckle gun as a fully automatic rifle as we think of fully automatic rifles is highly intellectually dishonest. A puckle gun could only be described as a semi automatic gun, at best, even with stretching credulity. A majority of NRA members want universal background checks. Lots of knowledgable, responsible gun owners want background checks.




Liar.  NRA members are no more or less informed on the lies about background checks than the general public are.

You guys lie....you want universal background checks only to get gun registration.....you don't tell anyone that, but that is what you want.  If the people polled understood this and the reason you want gun registration, they would not support universal background checks.

You know this, so you lie.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No one said the Pickle gun was automatic.  Only that the Founders understood that firearms technology wasn't going to end with muzzleloaders.
> 
> There's no majority of gun owners that want universal background checks.  Y'all need to stop telling that lie.











						Update Background Check Laws
					

Federal law does not address gun sales by unlicensed dealers. This background check loophole enables prohibited people to buy guns with no questions asked.




					everytownresearch.org


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Update Background Check Laws
> 
> 
> Federal law does not address gun sales by unlicensed dealers. This background check loophole enables prohibited people to buy guns with no questions asked.
> ...


What does your link prove?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Liar.  NRA members are no more or less informed on the lies about background checks than the general public are.
> 
> You guys lie....you want universal background checks only to get gun registration.....you don't tell anyone that, but that is what you want.  If the people polled understood this and the reason you want gun registration, they would not support universal background checks.
> 
> You know this, so you lie.


And all gun nuts love to receive butt sex. I have just as much proof of my claim as you do for yours.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> What does your link prove?


That Everytown is an outlet for anti-gun propaganda.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> And all gun nuts love to receive butt sex. I have just as much proof of my claim as you do for yours.


There's nothing stopping anyone from doing a transfer to make a private sell.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> There's nothing stopping anyone from doing a transfer to make a private sell.


And there is nothing to prevent secret events at all NRA meetings where all members compete to see who can have the most butt sex. I have just as much proof for my claim as you do for your claim that I want to ban guns. Proove me wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> There's nothing stopping anyone from doing a transfer to make a private sell.


Indeed.   It may be made illegal, but it cannot be stopped; those already buying/selling guns illegally are not going to stop because of UBC or UGR.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> And there is nothing to prevent secret events at all NRA meetings where all members compete to see who can have the most butt sex. I have just as much proof for my claim as you do for your claim that I want to ban guns. Proove me wrong.


anyone can go to an FFL dealer, with the buyer of his gun and do a transfer that requires a 4473 and a background check   that's a fact, ask anyone.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> In the U.S. we have 330 million people.
> 
> In 2019 there were 12 mass public shootings....12 individuals out of 330 million.
> 
> ...


Wanna know what else...

In 2019 15K people died from gunshot.
Over 200k were hospitalized.

And each and every one of those other examples?
Have regulations to protect the user.

DOH!


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Wanna know what else...
> 
> In 2019 15K people died from gunshot.
> Over 200k were hospitalized.
> ...




And guns are one of the most regulated products on the planet, you dumb ass.......

And only 10,258 died from gun murder, the rest were suicides, you dumb moron......

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives, you idiot.......can you tell which number is bigger?   That number comes from the vaunted Centers for Disease Control...

And dumb ass.....as more Americans own and carry guns.....for the last 27 years.....gun murder went down, not up, gun crime went down, not up...

How do you explain that?

600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...



Suicide is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue....

Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





 that makes for _at least_ 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 _trillion_ per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And guns are one of the most regulated products on the planet, you dumb ass.......
> 
> And only 10,258 died from gun murder, the rest were suicides, you dumb moron......
> 
> ...


Guns in the home are linked to higher odds of homicide. 41% when compared to homes with no guns. The odds of suicide are 244% higher.








						More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
					

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 21, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Just watching the news and there was a mass shooting in a  University in Russia.  A country with strict gun laws  still has violent gun crime. Strict laws are not the answer in all issues.                                               At least 8 killed in mass shooting on Russian university campus



Well that depends. In many western countries they have stricter gun laws, and they see much lower levels of gun crime.

The problem comes when people go "oh look, a gun crime" as if one shooting is comparable to the many, many shootings in the US. 

The US's gun murder rate is higher than the UK's murder rate. So yes, there's more to it than just guns. Literally in the US politicians are incapable of bothering to deal with problems.

The UK had a big increase in gun crime in the early 2000s. A lot of people like you were like "they brought in this new gun law in 1997 and gun murders and gun crime is increasing", and it did. But then it went down again because the UK dealt with the situation. 

The UK's murder rate is normally about 1.0 to 1.2 per 100,000 people.

In the US only 4 cities above 200,000 people manage to get lower than that.





__





						List of United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Three in California and one in Idaho. Out of 100 cities.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And guns are one of the most regulated products on the planet, you dumb ass.......
> 
> And only 10,258 died from gun murder, the rest were suicides, you dumb moron......
> 
> ...


Look at your moronic ass trying to jump around the truth after getting caught in your repeated lies.

"I wasn't talking about THOSE types of gun deaths..."

Why don't you ask someone whether they care whether the gun that killed them was a murder or a suicide.  
Be sure to get back to us with your answer dumbass.

AND
Relative to their danger guns are very nearly unregulated.
Background checks?  NO
Weapon and ammo limits?  NO Way!
Registration?  No way.  Hell slap[nuts we register cars, warranties, and weddings but guns, NO WAY."
You are ridiculous and your quote?

“the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
Nothing like quoting a guy who wrote Star Wars Fan Fiction to add gravity to your arguments.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> In 2019 15K people died from gunshot.
> Over 200k were hospitalized.
> And each and every one of those other examples?
> Have regulations to protect the user.


2/3 of the people who die from gunshot choose to die from gunshot.
How, exactly, do you propose to protect the user?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Relative to their danger guns are very nearly unregulated.


^^^^
This is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.


Dadoalex said:


> Background checks?  NO
> Weapon and ammo limits?  NO Way!
> Registration?  No way.


it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Given this, why would anyone support themn, musch less agree to them?


----------



## Esdraelon (Sep 22, 2021)

cnm said:


> We can see people choosing to believe a fantasy over a demonstrable reality. It's amazing.


Right?  It's almost as bad as the rush to believe pure unadulterated drivel against the Bad Orange Man for 4 years with no proof...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Guns in the home are linked to higher odds of homicide. 41% when compared to homes with no guns. The odds of suicide are 244% higher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron......you are doing the same stupid thing joe does....using joe's kellerman research...research Kellerman retracted because it was wrong...you dumb ass......I see now that you are flailing to keep your anti-gun emotions in play...

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

*After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;*

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon. Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Guns in the home are linked to higher odds of homicide. 41% when compared to homes with no guns. The odds of suicide are 244% higher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Japan and about 20 other countries with extreme gun control have higher suicide rates than we do...guns aren't the issue in suicide you doofus..

Now you are just recycling joe's dumb arguments......you really are out of gas...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well that depends. In many western countries they have stricter gun laws, and they see much lower levels of gun crime.
> 
> The problem comes when people go "oh look, a gun crime" as if one shooting is comparable to the many, many shootings in the US.
> 
> ...




They have lower levels of all crime......their criminals have access to guns, they simply don't use them to commit murder.   What part of that do you morons not understand...guns do not cause people to pull the trigger......

What you don't understand, dipstick, is that before they banned guns, the British had low levels of gun murder and crime...now, after they banned guns, they have about the same level of gun murder and crime....and it is increasing...as their immigrant drug gangs need guns to enforce their drug turf...

The British police also report, dipstick, that they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country...

The one thing British criminals don't do?  They don't choose to commit murder as often as American gang bangers in America do.........they shoot to wound in most cases, not to kill, unlike American gangs in democrat party controlled cities...

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK

Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

*Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.*

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.

*Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”*

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

*Handguns are the next biggest category,* most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========

*More....*

Girl, 16, arrested after three loaded guns and 200 bullets seized in raid
Diana Fawcett, the charity's chief executive, told Sky News: "At a time when the number of homicides has been falling, deaths related to gun crime are showing significant increases which is incredibly concerning.More than 600 children in the UK were arrested for suspected firearm offences last year amid the coronavirus pandemic, new figures reveal.
A Sky News investigation has found children as young as 11 were among more than 2,000 youths detained for alleged crimes involving guns, imitation firearms and air weapons between 2018 and January 2021.
-----
Simeon Moore, who carried a gun aged 15 when he was a member of a notorious Birmingham gang, said young people arming themselves often believe they are doing "the right thing".
---
"From knives, we started to carry guns. For me, at the time it was a means of protection.
"I was walking around and at any point I could get beat up, stabbed or have my head blown off.
Hundreds of children arrested for suspected gun crimes during COVID pandemic
==============

*The number of shootings in London is on the rise, despite the capital being in lockdown for significant parts of last year.*

Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 shooting incidents the year before.
-----
The second call of the day brought into sharp focus the concerns police have around the number of criminals apparently now willing to carry firearms.
----
The officer said criminal gangs were increasingly targeting vehicles for the small amounts of precious metals in the catalytic converters.

"It is only worth a few hundred pounds to them, but for that, the criminal gangs are willing to threaten lethal force."

Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal

Sharp rise in knife and gun attacks outside London as austerity bites

Across the West Midlands, violent crime has become unnervingly common. Despite knife crime in the capital making the headlines, it has risen by 103% since 2014 in this region compared with 48% in London, with 14 knife crimes a day so far this year often targeting children of school age. Meanwhile,* gun crime is up by a third in the West Midlands,* 

*and murder, GBH and other violent crimes increased by 17% in the last year alone. In London, the rises were about 10% and 6% year-on-year, respectively.*
The gangs and violence commission report found “crucial links” between the black market for illicit substances and serious violence, and much of the rising violence is blamed locally on disputes between gangs, many of whom deal drugs, increasingly being settled with guns and knives.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Look at your moronic ass trying to jump around the truth after getting caught in your repeated lies.
> 
> "I wasn't talking about THOSE types of gun deaths..."
> 
> ...




You are an idiot......

Criminals get around all background checks by using straw buyers and stealing their guns...you moron.

Criminals are not legally required to register their illegal guns...via the Haynes v United States Supreme Court ruling, you uninformed shithead...

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]





__





						Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




You don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand even the most basic aspects of the issues....you dumb ass.

Guns are one of the most regulated products in the country you moron.........you just pull crap out of your ass and think it has value....


----------



## Markle (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Does that reasoning work across the board? Are our food safety laws a waste of time too?


Our incredible Constitution is but four pages.  The right to defend ourselves is so important that they gave guns their own Amendment.

It appears that food inspection was not high on their list of critical work required of the Federal Government.  As you know from your extensive study of our Constitution that leaves food inspection up to the states.


----------



## Markle (Sep 22, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well that depends. In many western countries they have stricter gun laws, and they see much lower levels of gun crime.
> 
> The problem comes when people go "oh look, a gun crime" as if one shooting is comparable to the many, many shootings in the US.
> 
> ...


Doesn't this get boring, even for you?

Shocking, just shocking isn't it?  A country without guns has fewer GUN CRIMES than a country of freedom and liberty with a Constitution.

What say they outlaw and confiscate all knives?  Do you think that would lower knife crimes too?  Possible.

What you intentionally dodge is the fact that those same European countries have a much higher rate of violent crimes.  You know crimes like rape, assault, home invasions.  Do you suppose that the fact that those citizens have no way to defend themselves might have something to do with their violent crime rate?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

Markle said:


> Doesn't this get boring, even for you?
> 
> Shocking, just shocking isn't it?  A country without guns has fewer GUN CRIMES than a country of freedom and liberty with a Constitution.
> 
> ...




Their gun crimes are going up.....World War 2 slowed down the destruction of their families....now, their welfare state has wrecked the British family, and fatherless boys and girls are becoming criminals more and more...and turning to violence....


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron......you are doing the same stupid thing joe does....using joe's kellerman research...research Kellerman retracted because it was wrong...you dumb ass......I see now that you are flailing to keep your anti-gun emotions in play...
> 
> Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....
> 
> ...


Almost three times is still almost three times dumb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 22, 2021)

Markle said:


> Our incredible Constitution is but four pages.  The right to defend ourselves is so important that they gave guns their own Amendment.
> 
> It appears that food inspection was not high on their list of critical work required of the Federal Government.  As you know from your extensive study of our Constitution that leaves food inspection up to the states.


Lots of stuff not mentioned in the constitution are still constitutional, dumb ass.


----------



## Markle (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Lots of stuff not mentioned in the constitution are still constitutional, dumb ass.


Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.

That's quite true.  You were attempting to foolishly draw a parallel between a RIGHT, granted to us by the Constitution, and service provided by the government.  Even you can see what a silly comparison.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 22, 2021)

Markle said:


> Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
> 
> That's quite true.  You were attempting to foolishly draw a parallel between a RIGHT, granted to us by the Constitution, and service provided by the government.  Even you can see what a silly comparison.


So point out where the right to privacy, or the right to freedom of association, or the right to presumption of innocence is mentioned in the constitution, or do you consider those to be services?


----------



## airplanemechanic (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So point out where the right to privacy, or the right to freedom of association, or the right to presumption of innocence is mentioned in the constitution, or do you consider those to be services?



 6th amendment states everyone is innocent until proven guilty as it states everyone is entitled to due process, and IUPG has been stated as being part of due process by SCOTUS. 

Right to privacy: 4th amendment

Amendment 1.2.13.1 Freedom of Association

Any other questions?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Almost three times is still almost three times dumb ass.




His methods were still wrong on his redo of his study...as the post pointed out.......you moron...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Lots of stuff not mentioned in the constitution are still constitutional, dumb ass.




The Right to keep, and Bear Arms, is explicitly listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and you morons still can't seem to understand it....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 22, 2021)

Markle said:


> It appears that food inspection was not high on their list of critical work required of the Federal Government.  As you know from your extensive study of our Constitution that leaves food inspection up to the states.


Same with health care and education.


----------



## Markle (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So point out where the right to privacy, or the right to freedom of association, or the right to presumption of innocence is mentioned in the constitution, or do you consider those to be services?




Hillsdale College offers a free, online course on our Constitution.  You might want to spend a little time learning about the subject.

As you know, there is no right to privacy in our constitution.

As to Freedom of Association, you claim does not exist in our Constitution.
First Amendment​The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Then you mention the presumption of innocence. That too is not in our Constitution but is the result of a number of laws and court cases.

"The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial."

This started with you inferring that our food safety laws were in the constitution.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 22, 2021)

Markle said:


> Hillsdale College offers a free, online course on our Constitution.  You might want to spend a little time learning about the subject.
> 
> As you know, there is no right to privacy in our constitution.
> 
> ...


So you acknowledge that we have rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Good.


----------



## Markle (Sep 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So you acknowledge that we have rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Good.


Call them what you will but unless it is specified in our Constitution, it is not nearly on the same level.  As you well know.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 22, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2/3 of the people who die from gunshot choose to die from gunshot.
> How, exactly, do you propose to protect the user?


Remove the gun.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 22, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> This is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
> 
> it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
> Given this, why would anyone support themn, musch less agree to them?


As I said, virtually unregulated.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Sep 22, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!



In this country private citizens could buy gatling guns and cannons

My human and constitutional right to own a brand spanking new fully automatic weapon or a fully operational tank is a social injustice


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot......
> 
> Criminals get around all background checks by using straw buyers and stealing their guns...you moron.
> 
> ...


WoW.
It seems like you're in favor of my entire agenda 
BECAUSE
My Tiny Brained oxygen deprived Querdenken,
The stronger background checks and limits on purchases will eliminate every problem you described.
Thank you for your ill worded, lightly thought, and thoroughly ignorant response.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Remove the gun.




The Japanese have higher suicide rates than we do, you dumb ass...as do about 20 other European countries......

Guns are not the issue in suicide.

Scotland has a higher suicide rate than the U.S......Japan, where only criminals and cops have guns, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Denmark has a higher suicide rate than the u.S.....



France

Germany,

Hungary

Iceland

New Zealand

Poland

Norway

Japan

South Korea



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



Scotland..



15.7 suicides per 100,000

In 2019?

16.7 suicides per 100,000.

And in the U.S.?

13.93 per 100,000



Suicide facts and figures



Changes in Suicide Rates — United States, ...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



South Korea 24.7

Hungary 21

Japan 19.4

Belgium 18.4

Finland 16.5

France 14.6

Austria 13.8

Poland 13.8

Czec Republic 12.7

New Zealand 11.9

Denmark 11.3

Sweden  11.1

Norway 10.9

Slovac Republic 10.9

Iceland 10.3

Germany 10.3

Canada 10.2

United States 10.1



A new report by Unicef contains a shocking statistic - New Zealand has by far the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world.
A shock but no surprise - it's not the first time the country tops that table.
The Unicef report found New Zealand's youth suicide rate - teenagers between 15 and 19 - to be the highest of a long list of 41 OECD and EU countries.
The rate of 15.6 suicides per 100,000 people is twice as high as the US rate and almost five times that of Britain.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40284130



Another year...Japan and 20 other countries with higher suicide rates than U.S....



https://www.nli-research.co.jp/files/topics/51104_ext_18_en_0.pdf?site=nli


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> WoW.
> It seems like you're in favor of my entire agenda
> BECAUSE
> My Tiny Brained oxygen deprived Querdenken,
> ...




You can't explain how background checks or purchase limits do any of that....just saying they will doesn't mean anything...you asshats have been shown over and over again that background checks are ignored by criminals, they use straw buyers who can pass any background check or steal the guns....and that also gets around any limit on purchases..

Are you this mentally deficient in real life or just when you post.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The Japanese have higher suicide rates than we do, you dumb ass...as do about 20 other European countries......
> 
> Guns are not the issue in suicide.
> 
> ...


As always, your cut and paste skills are awesome.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Remove the gun.


Oh. 
I thought you might have a rational, reasonable solution.
Silly me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> As I said, virtually unregulated.


Which is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.

it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Given this, why would anyone support them, much less agree to them?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The stronger background checks and limits on purchases will eliminate every problem you described.


^^^
This is a lie, as you know the people currently buying and selling guns illegally will not be affected by these background checks.


----------



## cnm (Sep 23, 2021)

lg325 said:


> A country with strict gun laws still has violent gun crime.


It's almost as though if a solution is not perfect it must not be implemented.


----------



## Markle (Sep 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> As always, your cut and paste skills are awesome.


Bottom line is that you agree with the statistics posted and the facts tick you off.

Got it!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

cnm said:


> It's almost as though if a solution is not perfect it must not be implemented.


There's no rational reason to implement an unnecessary and/or ineffective "solution".


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The Japanese have higher suicide rates than we do, you dumb ass...as do about 20 other European countries......
> 
> Guns are not the issue in suicide.
> 
> ...


The choice of weapon is always a factor.

Rates will always vary by society.
BUT
Eliminating the choice of using a firearm makes it harder.
So....
Your diatribe was irrelevant and worthless.
What else you got?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You can't explain how background checks or purchase limits do any of that....just saying they will doesn't mean anything...you asshats have been shown over and over again that background checks are ignored by criminals, they use straw buyers who can pass any background check or steal the guns....and that also gets around any limit on purchases..
> 
> Are you this mentally deficient in real life or just when you post.


It doesn't take explanation, all it takes is common sense.
Straw Buyers, for example...
Background checks on EVERY transaction would eliminate their ability to make the buys...
Registration would ID to whom the gun was sold and then the gun can be traced through the exchanges.

NOW
Unless you are saying that all gun owners are criminals by nature then these processes will drive out the brown market for firearms.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh.
> I thought you might have a rational, reasonable solution.
> Silly me.


The most rational solution when dealing with irrational people is to remove their ability to harm themselves or others.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Eliminating the choice of using a firearm makes it harder.


Your suggestion is irrelevant and worthless.
What else you got?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The most rational solution when dealing with irrational people is to remove their ability to harm themselves or others.


If so, the only solution is to incarcerate and restrain them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Background checks on EVERY transaction would eliminate their ability to make the buys...
> Registration would ID to whom the gun was sold and then the gun can be traced through the exchanges.


You know these things are useless as you know the people currently buying and selling guns illegally will not be affected by them.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Which is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
> 
> it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
> Given this, why would anyone support them, much less agree to them?


AGAIN, nationwide...
Are guns licensed?
Are 100% background checks done?
Are there purchase limits?
Are there regulations on storage?

NO???????

Other than special circumstances such as when the politicians who've given you so many guns want protection from all the guns they've given you guns are nearly unregulated.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie, as you know the people currently buying and selling guns illegally will not be affected by these background checks.


From whom are they buying the guns illegally?

The Criminal Gun Manufacturing Company?

They're buying their guns from the collective YOU.
Now, if you want to risk 10 years in a federal prison for selling your firearm without doing the background check that is fine with both me and the criminal to whom you sold the gun.  
BUT
I'm betting you roll on your criminal associate for a lighter sentence and we get both of you off the street.

The "law abiding" gun owner is responsible for 100% of gun crime because the "law-abiding" gun owner is the guy providing the guns to the criminals.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> In the U.S. we have 330 million people.
> 
> In 2019 there were 12 mass public shootings....12 individuals out of 330 million.
> 
> ...




You can do something to prevent yourself from falling in the bathtub and dying, same with lawnmowers, cars, deer, ladders, etc.

Pretty hard to do anything about some goof who decided to shoot a bunch of people.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> From whom are they buying the guns illegally?
> 
> The Criminal Gun Manufacturing Company?
> 
> ...


The law abiding gun owner has no obligation to know or care if the person buying their gun can legally have it. He has no legal obligation to bother to find out.  The legal gun owner is often a straw buyer whether he knows it or not.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Just watched the first few minutes, but might watch the rest later. I found it rediculous when he, like so many gun nuts here claimed that those wanting reasonable gun regulation didn't know anything about guns. It was funny when he said the forefathers would have certainly known how much gun technology would advance, and gave the puckle gun as an example of a fully automatic gun of that time.  He didn't bother to mention the puckle gun was capable of only 9 rounds per minute.


Way better than the rate of fire for the standard flintlock musket of the time, which was around 3 shots a minute.


----------



## Markle (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The choice of weapon is always a factor.
> 
> Rates will always vary by society.
> BUT
> ...


Even you know that you make no sense. Really, how can you grudgingly agree that many other countries, with prohibitions on any form of guns, have a far higher rates of suicide than the United States, but whine, "but taking our guns would make it more difficult.

Say wut?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> AGAIN, nationwide...
> Are guns licensed?
> Are 100% background checks done?
> Are there purchase limits?
> Are there regulations on storage?


Again:
It is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Given this, there's no rational reason for anyone support to them, much less agree to them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> From whom are they buying the guns illegally?


Those that sell them illegally.
As you know, the people currently buying and selling guns illegally will not be affected by these background checks, et al.   
Thus, your lie.



Dadoalex said:


> The "law abiding" gun owner is responsible for 100% of gun crime because the "law-abiding" gun owner is the guy providing the guns to the criminals.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Markle (Sep 23, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Way better than the rate of fire for the standard flintlock musket of the time, which was around 3 shots a minute.


Your point being?


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!




Of course you are wrong about guns.


----------



## Markle (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex, how about this as a reasonable solution to your obsession with guns.

Instead of punishing law abiding citizens, we hold anyone using a gun in the commission accountable.  Not like the far-lefts thoughts on punishment for criminals but serious consequences.

Anyone arrested for commiting a crime with a.gun, or in possession of one illegally cannot receive bail.  They stay in jail until their trial.  Use of a gun in the commission of a crime, automatic minimum of ten years.  Fire a gun in the commission of a crime, (no one injured) minimum of twenty years in prison.  Injure someone with a gun, automatic thirty years.  Three felonies, life in prison.  Kill a cop, death penalty.

That seems like a start.  What about you?


----------



## basquebromance (Sep 24, 2021)




----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The choice of weapon is always a factor.
> 
> Rates will always vary by society.
> BUT
> ...




No...it isn't a factor......anything done at the range of a mass public shooting can be done with a pistol or shotgun...often killing more people with those weapons than even a rifle...you uninformed ignoramus...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowd hadn't been  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...

Cumbria, England.....sawn off shotgun, .22 caliber bolt action rifle....13 killed, 11 injured.......



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Kazan, Russia school shooting....semi-automatic shotgun 5 + 1 or 7 +1 capacity...9 killed, 23 injured



Perm, Russia school shooting.... 4 + 1 capacity, 6 killed, 43 injured



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine doesn't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.



We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....



They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019  killing a grand total of



41



Deer kill 200 people a year.



Ladders kill 300 people a year.



Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> It doesn't take explanation, all it takes is common sense.
> Straw Buyers, for example...
> Background checks on EVERY transaction would eliminate their ability to make the buys...
> Registration would ID to whom the gun was sold and then the gun can be traced through the exchanges.
> ...



Moron....straw buyers can pass any background check...then they knowingly give or sell those weapons to known criminals...they are already committing an illegal act by lying on the background check.

You are an idiot.

Registration...of course....you need this to confiscate guns......

Do you understand, you half wit, that felons do not have to register their illegal guns, and they can't be prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns....

And registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes?

You have no understanding of anything about guns or gun issues...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

*The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.*

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

*Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.*
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



*Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. *Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

*Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. *If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

*Registries are expensive*. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

*No gun recovered. *If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even _theoretically_ helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

=========

In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

*Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.*

*During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”*

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.






Bullet tracking..

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."



*Eighty percent of illegal guns recovered in Michigan have been on the street for at least three years. The average time between a firearm being stolen and turning up in a criminal context — what police call the “time to crime” — is a long 13 years.*

Editorial: How to get illegal guns off the streets


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> AGAIN, nationwide...
> Are guns licensed?
> Are 100% background checks done?
> Are there purchase limits?
> ...




Moron...you act as if we don't have these things....and that they haven't failed...I just posted the failure of gun registration in post #108....

Background checks don't work cause criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any freaking background check, or they steal the guns....you half wit...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> From whom are they buying the guns illegally?
> 
> The Criminal Gun Manufacturing Company?
> 
> ...




Moron...straw buyers who supply criminals with guns are already ignoring the possible prison sentences....because too often, the democrats will not prosecute straw buyers...you doofus...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

*Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.*
*
--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review
======

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review
===========

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago today charged an Indiana man with federal firearm violations for allegedly conspiring to straw purchase a semi-automatic handgun that the charges allege was used to shoot two Chicago Police officers last weekend, including the fatal wounding of Officer Ella French.*
*JAMEL DANZY purchased the firearm at a federal firearms dealer in Hammond, Ind., on March 18, 2021, and falsely certified on the required forms that he was the actual buyer, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago.  In reality, Danzy was a straw purchaser who bought the gun at the request of someone whom Danzy knew resided in Chicago, Ill., and was not lawfully allowed to purchase a firearm due to a felony criminal conviction, the complaint states.  Danzy gave the firearm to the Illinois resident shortly after the purchase, the complaint states.*


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The law abiding gun owner has no obligation to know or care if the person buying their gun can legally have it. He has no legal obligation to bother to find out.  The legal gun owner is often a straw buyer whether he knows it or not.




Criminals aren't getting their guns from private citizens...you have been shown this, but you want registration so you ignore the truth.....

Straw buyers pass background checks then give or sell the guns to criminals.....background check laws don't stop them since they can pass any background check, you doofus.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 24, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!


/——-/ Question 2 is a false comparison. Owning a gun is a right. Owning and operating a car is a privilege.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 24, 2021)

Markle said:


> Even you know that you make no sense. Really, how can you grudgingly agree that many other countries, with prohibitions on any form of guns, have a far higher rates of suicide than the United States, but whine, "but taking our guns would make it more difficult.
> 
> Say wut?


Expand your knowledge sonny.
Suicide in many places in the world is considered and honorable end.  A preferred end to long suffering.
They don't fear death the way Americans do.

So, yes, taking away guns will make suicides more difficult to achieve and, therefore, save lives.

It's obvious.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 24, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Again:
> It is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
> Given this, there's no rational reason for anyone support to them, much less agree to them.


Not an answer to the questions, any of them.
Why try to evade?
Could it be that you know your claim that guns are heavily regulated is just another of your lies?
None of the restriction keeps anyone who is legally qualified from owning or carrying firearms as appropriate.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...it isn't a factor......anything done at the range of a mass public shooting can be done with a pistol or shotgun...often killing more people with those weapons than even a rifle...you uninformed ignoramus...
> 
> There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.
> 
> ...


GEEZ.
What an effin Tiny Brained Querdenken!

Your point is unknown to anyone with fewer that 8 pounds of crap between their ears.

BUT
How many mass murders are committed 
by ladders?
by Deer?
by Lawn Mowers?

Do lawn mowers and ladders have other purposes?

What, other than killing is the purpose of any firearm?
AND
If it has no other purpose it should be heavily regulated or eliminated.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron....straw buyers can pass any background check...then they knowingly give or sell those weapons to known criminals...they are already committing an illegal act by lying on the background check.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> ...


My goodness you are one prolific little copy and pasting Querdenken.

Riddle me this...

Who manufactures guns for criminals?

What is the name of the company that manufactures the guns that criminals use.
Obviously the guns must be coming direct from some manufacturer because Law Abiding gun owners would NEVER EVER EVER let their weapons be used for criminal purposes.

Or am I wrong?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron...you act as if we don't have these things....and that they haven't failed...I just posted the failure of gun registration in post #108....
> 
> Background checks don't work cause criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any freaking background check, or they steal the guns....you half wit...


Really my Tiny Minded Querdenken?
What is the federal law requiring gun registration?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron...straw buyers who supply criminals with guns are already ignoring the possible prison sentences....because too often, the democrats will not prosecute straw buyers...you doofus...
> 
> America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review
> 
> ...


There he goes copying and pasting as if he made sense.

That, my Tiny Minded Querdenken is why we enhance the laws.

God, you are stupid even among the Querdenken


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Expand your knowledge sonny.
> Suicide in many places in the world is considered and honorable end.  A preferred end to long suffering.
> They don't fear death the way Americans do.
> 
> ...




Moron...what is it with you and stupidity...were you born stupid, or did you practice to get more stupid...

It doesn't matter why they commit suicide...you doofus........they have limited access to guns...that is the issue, and they still commit suicide at higher rates than we do...as do 20 other countries........


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> GEEZ.
> What an effin Tiny Brained Querdenken!
> 
> Your point is unknown to anyone with fewer that 8 pounds of crap between their ears.
> ...




Those deaths out number the illegal use of a gun...............and yet we don't ban lawn mowers ladders or even bathtubs....that kill way more people every single year than rifles do...you idiot....

Are you really this stupid?  Guns are one of the most heavily regulated products on the planet.....and you sitting there like an idiot saying they aren't is just stupid.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> My goodness you are one prolific little copy and pasting Querdenken.
> 
> Riddle me this...
> 
> ...




Morons.....idiots who can pass any background check and are too stupid to not do it, sell guns to criminals...or, in the case of baby mommas, mothers and grand mothers of gang bangers, they are either paid to buy the guns, or they are threatened with violence to buy the guns...

Or they steal the guns....the L.A. gangs have dedicated robbery crews who just steal guns....

A little basic research into this topic would go a long way to make you not look like an idiot..


----------



## Markle (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Expand your knowledge sonny.
> Suicide in many places in the world is considered and honorable end.  A preferred end to long suffering.
> They don't fear death the way Americans do.
> 
> ...









Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Really my Tiny Minded Querdenken?
> What is the federal law requiring gun registration?




States have had them and they failed...Canada tried to register just 5 million long guns....not 600 million guns....and that failed...you doofus........

Besides being unConstitutional and unnecessary...and stupid.....registration doesn't work at stopping crime...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

*The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.*

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

*Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.*
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



*Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. *Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

*Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. *If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

*Registries are expensive*. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

*No gun recovered. *If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even _theoretically_ helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

*Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”*

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> There he goes copying and pasting as if he made sense.
> 
> That, my Tiny Minded Querdenken is why we enhance the laws.
> 
> God, you are stupid even among the Querdenken




Do your parents know you are on the computer, unsupervised, again?   They are going to ground you again...you little idiot.


----------



## Markle (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> GEEZ.
> What an effin Tiny Brained Querdenken!
> 
> Your point is unknown to anyone with fewer that 8 pounds of crap between their ears.
> ...


Why and how can you demand that we as citizens of America, surrender our right to defend ourselves?  What gives you that right?  If you don't want any guns in your house, fine.  Here's a sign you can print up for your front door.






Thank God we live in America and we have the US Constitution.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> In the U.S. we have 330 million people.
> 
> In 2019 there were 12 mass public shootings....12 individuals out of 330 million.
> 
> ...



Well, that was a slam dunk if I ever read one


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 24, 2021)

Markle said:


> Why and how can you demand that we as citizens of America, surrender our right to defend ourselves?  What gives you that right?  If you don't want any guns in your house, fine.  Here's a sign you can print up for your front door.
> 
> Thank God we live in America and we have the US Constitution.



Ask me which of those two continues to give me any comfort.........


----------



## Markle (Sep 24, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> My goodness you are one prolific little copy and pasting Querdenken.
> 
> Riddle me this...
> 
> ...


You're wrong but that is typical of someone who demands to remain ignorant about any subject.

U.S.
New Report on Where Criminals Get Their Guns​By ROBERT VERBRUGGEN
January 10, 2019 12:19 PM

Among prisoners serving time for a crime during which they possessed a gun, about half got their weapons either on the underground market (43 percent) or through theft (6 percent). Meanwhile, 10 percent bought guns from a retail source, including 0.8 percent who bought them at gun shows.

Another 11 percent of the time, someone else bought the gun for them, either as a gift or as a straw purchase (situations I wish the survey separated). Roughly 15 percent got guns from family and friends (buying, renting, trading, borrowing). And 12 percent of the time, the guns were either brought to the crime by someone else or found at the scene.

An obvious policy implication is that it would be very difficult to regulate most of these transactions — the underground market is by definition unregulated; people in criminal social networks are not going to follow gun laws; theft is already illegal; licensed dealers already conduct background checks. A fair counterargument, though, is that most guns begin life with a legal sale from a dealer, so there may be ways to stop guns from entering the illegal market to begin with.









						New Report on Where Criminals Get Their Guns | National Review
					

It would be very difficult to regulate most of these transactions.




					www.nationalreview.com


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 24, 2021)

If you think your government reams you now........

When they succeed in taking your guns away, you'll wish for the old gentler reaming days


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Expand your knowledge sonny.
> Suicide in many places in the world is considered and honorable end.  A preferred end to long suffering.
> They don't fear death the way Americans do.
> 
> ...


/——-/ Taking away your car will stop drunk driving, too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Not an answer to the questions, any of them.


Your questions do not address the issue put to you....
Which you have not addressed .
Because you know to do so is to admit the inanity of your position.


Dadoalex said:


> Could it be that you know your claim that guns are heavily regulated is just another of your lies?


If abortions where regulated in the same or similar manner as guns, people such as youw ould scream loud enough to be heard on the moon.
Thus, your statement is demonstrated a lie.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You can't explain how background checks or purchase limits do any of that....just saying they will doesn't mean anything...you asshats have been shown over and over again that background checks are ignored by criminals, they use straw buyers who can pass any background check or steal the guns....and that also gets around any limit on purchases..
> 
> Are you this mentally deficient in real life or just when you post.


This is why the democrat's are attacking the whole thing, otherwise they don't want to attack the specific problem that involves specific individuals, so they attempt to punish everyone. This is why Democrat's are communist or have Communist ways when it comes to using government to crush their supposed targets, otherwise without selecting the individuals that are the problem's, and so therefore they punish the whole even if it means denying the freedom's of the individuals that don't engage in such things. If this nation doesn't learn this fast, and the demoncrats remain in power somehow, then we as a free people will exist no more.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 25, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> If you think your government reams you now........
> 
> When they succeed in taking your guns away, you'll wish for the old gentler reaming days


Especially if the government has become seriously corrupt, and it seems that it is heading that way fast.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Who manufactures guns for criminals?


No one.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron...what is it with you and stupidity...were you born stupid, or did you practice to get more stupid...
> 
> It doesn't matter why they commit suicide...you doofus........they have limited access to guns...that is the issue, and they still commit suicide at higher rates than we do...as do 20 other countries........


Sure it matters my Tiny Brained Querdeken.
In Japan, for example, suicide is often an honorable right performed to preserve honor or family status.
In the US, on the other hand, you people fear death DESPITE your claimed belief that death will lead to your "heaven."
YOU will desperately try to delay the unavoidable by any means possible and at any expense.

What, for example, is the suicide rate in the US WITHOUT guns?




Well look at that, guns outnumber all other methods when committing suicide.
Eliminate the guns and how many of those suicides fail?
Let's see if we can figure it out.




Look at that, guns succeed 82.5% of the time while cutting one's writes only succeeds 1.2% of the time.
Logic dictates that eliminating guns will reduce the number of suicides significantly BECAUSE no matter how the attempts are made, failure rates will increase, failures will increase and fewer people will die.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Those deaths out number the illegal use of a gun...............and yet we don't ban lawn mowers ladders or even bathtubs....that kill way more people every single year than rifles do...you idiot....
> 
> Are you really this stupid?  Guns are one of the most heavily regulated products on the planet.....and you sitting there like an idiot saying they aren't is just stupid.....


Geez, you are one stupid Querdeken!
I would guess that among the Querdeken you hold the honored position of Dumfuken Supreme.

I'm going to guess you have a special meaning for "illegal" but
Cars have a purpose, transportation
Mowers cut grass
Bathtubs are for hygiene, something I'm sure amazes you, no, it's not a urinal.
What is the purpose of a gun other than to kill people?

AND when did I say rifle?
When did I say AR-15?

Do you have any idea how difficult is is to commit suicide with a long rifle?
Try it, we'll wait.

You keep trying to lie your way out of your stupidity but all you're doing is looking more Querdeken by the minute.


----------



## John T. Ford (Sep 25, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!


You LEFTIST are wrong about EVERYTHING ....


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Morons.....idiots who can pass any background check and are too stupid to not do it, sell guns to criminals...or, in the case of baby mommas, mothers and grand mothers of gang bangers, they are either paid to buy the guns, or they are threatened with violence to buy the guns...
> 
> Or they steal the guns....the L.A. gangs have dedicated robbery crews who just steal guns....
> 
> A little basic research into this topic would go a long way to make you not look like an idiot..


I checked and I can't find anything under "Morons...Idiots" gun manufacturer.
Perhaps you could show us a link?

Guns a manufactued by "law abiding companies."
Sold to "law abiding dealers"
Then sold to "law abiding gun owners."

No place in there for any criminal activity UNLESS, of course, not all "law abiding gun" people are not actually law abiding.

No my tiny Brained Querdeken, the source for ALL "criminal guns" are "law abiding citizens" just like you.

So when that four year old is shot playing in her bedroom, you did it.
When 10-12 people are shot in a gang fight, you did it.
When that 6 year old shoots his infant brother, you are guilty.

The changes I propose would severely restrict the ability of criminals to obtain firearms through current channels.
They will try other channels and we'll shut them down.
ALL without violating anyone's rights.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

Markle said:


> Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.


And thank you for allow Joe to speak on your post.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> States have had them and they failed...Canada tried to register just 5 million long guns....not 600 million guns....and that failed...you doofus........
> 
> Besides being unConstitutional and unnecessary...and stupid.....registration doesn't work at stopping crime...
> 
> ...


A the head of the Dumfuken copies and pases again.

BUT

Oh ye of empty head...

I said FEDERAL, no state.

Can't work at the state level because all one has to do is cross state lines to get what they want.

FEDERAL
FEDERAL


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Do your parents know you are on the computer, unsupervised, again?   They are going to ground you again...you little idiot.


Ohhh, somebody's panties are in a wad.
One hopes you changed panties before wadding them.  I mean even more EWWWWW than normal.

For someone's who's failed to post an original thought on this thread or others your use of the insult "idiot" is laughable.

Everything you've copied and pasted here actually supported my position.
So, my Tiny Minded Querdeken, now that we see you are owned by pulling out your pre-teen insult library,
I will, in the future only categorize your current state of stupid in any forthcoming response.
You've nothing to say, not a single original thought, so all that's left is to treat you like the sidekick you are.


----------



## JohnDB (Sep 25, 2021)

The only way the 2nd amendment can be abolished is by another constitutional convention repealing the 2nd amendment. 

So since this is unlikely... you gotta live with the guns. 

And where I like guns I'm not a fan of cheap hand guns. I like expensive guns...ones so expensive that they are difficult to afford. So that way people would stop leaving them in their cars so they get stolen. 

However... 
The issue lately is the ammunition.  Even the reloading supplies are getting harder and harder to find. 
Shotgun shell's lead shot are now formulated with steel so the barrels will wear out.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

Markle said:


> Why and how can you demand that we as citizens of America, surrender our right to defend ourselves?  What gives you that right?  If you don't want any guns in your house, fine.  Here's a sign you can print up for your front door.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a single item I've proposed denies ownership to any person legally permitted to own a firearm.
Not a single item I've proposed is unconstitutional.
Turn off OANN and educate yourself.


----------



## JohnDB (Sep 25, 2021)

The gunpowder is tagged like dynamite and the lead is mixed with steel to wear out the barrels. 

The more you use a gun the faster it wears out.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

Markle said:


> You're wrong but that is typical of someone who demands to remain ignorant about any subject.
> 
> U.S.
> New Report on Where Criminals Get Their Guns​By ROBERT VERBRUGGEN
> ...


Wrong about what?
The proposals are designed to specifically address 79% of the issues pointed out in the first 2 paragraphs.
Wouldn't reducing the availability of guns to criminals by 79% without denying legal ownership to anyone qualified and without violating anyone's rights be worth the effort?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Taking away your car will stop drunk driving, too.


Where did I say "take away?"

Background checks, limits on purchases, and registration takes nothing from anyone.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your questions do not address the issue put to you....
> Which you have not addressed .
> Because you know to do so is to admit the inanity of your position.
> 
> ...


I always address what is relevant.  Try being relevant.

Which states have laws requiring a gun owner to have practicing permissions at a hospital within 15 miles of their residence?

Please, I'd like to know.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Where did I say "take away?"
> 
> Background checks, limits on purchases, and registration takes nothing from anyone.


/—-/ If they don’t result in confiscation, what is the point?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 25, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> No one.


Well then criminals can only be getting their guns from law abiding gun owners.


----------



## Markle (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Ohhh, somebody's panties are in a wad.
> One hopes you changed panties before wadding them.  I mean even more EWWWWW than normal.
> 
> For someone's who's failed to post an original thought on this thread or others your use of the insult "idiot" is laughable.
> ...


I'm curious as to why you get such a tingle up your leg by making yourself appear so ignorant.

Well, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Sure it matters my Tiny Brained Querdeken.
> In Japan, for example, suicide is often an honorable right performed to preserve honor or family status.
> In the US, on the other hand, you people fear death DESPITE your claimed belief that death will lead to your "heaven."
> YOU will desperately try to delay the unavoidable by any means possible and at any expense.
> ...



Again dipshit, it doesnt matter why the Japanese commit suicide.  You are trying to hide the fact that without guns they commit more suicide than we do in the states.  That shows that guns are not the issue…..you want guns to be the issue so you lie about the japanese.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Sure it matters my Tiny Brained Querdeken.
> In Japan, for example, suicide is often an honorable right performed to preserve honor or family status.
> In the US, on the other hand, you people fear death DESPITE your claimed belief that death will lead to your "heaven."
> YOU will desperately try to delay the unavoidable by any means possible and at any expense.
> ...



The Japanes and the people of 20 other gun controlled countries commit suicide at higher rates…..without guns.

You can dance all you want but you cant change the truth…. Guns dont matter in suicide you freaking doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> I checked and I can't find anything under "Morons...Idiots" gun manufacturer.
> Perhaps you could show us a link?
> 
> Guns a manufactued by "law abiding companies."
> ...



wow, you really are stupid.  Criminals steal guns….criminals lie and act as straw buyers for criminals.  Nothing to do with law abiding people you sick asshole.

Nothing you proposed does anything to stop criminals.  I showed you this with facts.  I showed you this with actual experience from cities and countries that have already done what you want and those things failed.

You are too stupid to understand this.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> A the head of the Dumfuken copies and pases again.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...



Moron,  canada tried to register just 5 million long guns and it was a
Conplete fucking fail

on top of that, Haynes v United States says that criminals dont get prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns.

And, you dumb shit, we know from actual history that gun registration is the first step to gun banning and confiscation which is what you really want.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Sure it matters my Tiny Brained Querdeken.
> In Japan, for example, suicide is often an honorable right performed to preserve honor or family status.
> In the US, on the other hand, you people fear death DESPITE your claimed belief that death will lead to your "heaven."
> YOU will desperately try to delay the unavoidable by any means possible and at any expense.
> ...



Buildings, trains and household chemicals are the leading methods of suicide in Japan and ropes are the leading cause in other countries you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Wrong about what?
> The proposals are designed to specifically address 79% of the issues pointed out in the first 2 paragraphs.
> Wouldn't reducing the availability of guns to criminals by 79% without denying legal ownership to anyone qualified and without violating anyone's rights be worth the effort?



Notuing you proposed does anything and you are too stupid to realize it.

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns….which means gun registration and background checks dont do shit.  What about that is so hard for your brain to understand?


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Where did I say "take away?"
> 
> Background checks, limits on purchases, and registration takes nothing from anyone.


To you, probably not.

To Americans,  it is a big deal.  It is, as you know, the difference between Freedom and Liberty, that I have and giving that up which you demand.


Dadoalex said:


> A the head of the Dumfuken copies and pases again.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


Yeah, that was the idea.  That's why we are called a republic.

Have you studied our Constitution?  You don't seem to be familiar with it given some of your your ideas.

Hillsdale College offers a free on-line course on our Constitution.  It would be quite helpful to you.

I'm not being facetious, I'm trying to help you make better arguments.


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Well then criminals can only be getting their guns from law abiding gun owners.


Now you're just being silly, aren't you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> What, for example, is the suicide rate in the US WITHOUT guns?


According to your numbers:   About the same as it is with guns.
423,000,00 guns in the US; 24,000 are used per year to commit suicide.
0.0056% of guns are used to commit suicide; 99.9943% are not
For every gun used to commit suicide, 17,600 are not
What's your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> What is the purpose of a gun other than to kill people?


Guns obviously have any number of uses other than to kill people., given how many guns there are and how few of them are used to kill someone.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> So when that four year old is shot playing in her bedroom, you did it.
> When 10-12 people are shot in a gang fight, you did it.
> When that 6 year old shoots his infant brother, you are guilty.


^^^^
All of this is a lie.


Dadoalex said:


> The changes I propose would severely restrict the ability of criminals to obtain firearms through current channels.


^^^
This is also a lie, given what these people are doing now is already illegal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Can't work at the state level because all one has to do is cross state lines to get what they want.


And commit a federal felony while doing so.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Not a single item I've proposed denies ownership to any person legally permitted to own a firearm.


And yet, they are all unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the esercise of a right are infringements on said right.
"Shall not be infringed."
Tune off Democratic Underground and educate yourself.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Background checks, limits on purchases, and registration takes nothing from anyone.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> I always address what is relevant.  Try being relevant.


I accept your surrender.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Well then criminals can only be getting their guns from law abiding gun owners.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /—-/ If they don’t result in confiscation, what is the point?


Trace from creation to destruction.  find those selling guns illegally.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

Markle said:


> I'm curious as to why you get such a tingle up your leg by making yourself appear so ignorant.
> 
> Well, whatever floats your boat.


One must speak to the audience in a manner they understand.

You're welcome.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Again dipshit, it doesnt matter why the Japanese commit suicide.  You are trying to hide the fact that without guns they commit more suicide than we do in the states.  That shows that guns are not the issue…..you want guns to be the issue so you lie about the japanese.


No one lying here but you my Tiny brained Querdeken.

Social norms matter greatly when talking about suicide.

What YOU don't want to talk about is that removing the firearm will, in fact, reduce the number o suicides by simply increasing the failure rates.

Of course, in order to discuss it you'd have to actually understand 3rd grad math so...


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The Japanes and the people of 20 other gun controlled countries commit suicide at higher rates…..without guns.
> 
> You can dance all you want but you cant change the truth…. Guns dont matter in suicide you freaking doofus.


Again, avoiding the actual factual data.
Why, oh why do you want to ignore the data?
Is it that you don't understand the data?
Is it that you're too dumb to do third grade math?
or, most likely
Does the data fail to support the lies you tell.

In the US which is the only country here that matters
Firearms account for more suicide deaths than all other causes combined; and
The success rate when using a firearm to commit suicide is more than 15% higher than any other method.

Simple math my ignoramus, simple math.

Can't lie about math.
You can be wrong, like you are
You can try to lie like you do
But math don't lie, liar.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> wow, you really are stupid.  Criminals steal guns….criminals lie and act as straw buyers for criminals.  Nothing to do with law abiding people you sick asshole.
> 
> Nothing you proposed does anything to stop criminals.  I showed you this with facts.  I showed you this with actual experience from cities and countries that have already done what you want and those things failed.
> 
> You are too stupid to understand this.


Well, since ALL guns start off in the hands of "law abiding" gun owners
The most reasonable changes proposed will reduce the flow of guns to criminals
WITHOUT violating anyone's rights.

Why do you want criminals to have guns?
Why do you want people to die because of your demand criminals be given guns?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron,  canada tried to register just 5 million long guns and it was a
> Conplete fucking fail
> 
> on top of that, Haynes v United States says that criminals dont get prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns.
> ...


This isn't canada dickbrain.
Try focusing on the Us.
I understand you hate the US but try to stay focused.

Educate yourself:


			https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&context=faculty_scholarship
		


before you continue making stupid comments and comparisons.

Hitler didn't impose gun registration on Germany, the US did. oopsie!

See what happens when the NRA is not your soul source for information?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Buildings, trains and household chemicals are the leading methods of suicide in Japan and ropes are the leading cause in other countries you idiot.


This isn't Japan, dickbrain.

Try sticking to the topic if you can't make your idiotic references relevant.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Notuing you proposed does anything and you are too stupid to realize it.
> 
> Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns….which means gun registration and background checks dont do shit.  What about that is so hard for your brain to understand?


REALLLLLY?
God you are stupid?

So in your transaction, who is the law abiding gun owner?

BECAUSE, the value in straw buyers is not their anonymity, it is that they are easily IDed. Meaning the FBI can run its check and come back OK.  But registration means I can trace the weapon BACK to that buyer and if he has no ready explanation for why his firearm was used by criminals, no more guns or ammo for that guy.  Dry up the pool of straw buyers and that market dries up.

UNLESS, of course, law abiding gun owners are willingly breaking the law.  That wouldn't happen, would it?

Are you REALLY as dumb as everything you've ever posted shows?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

Markle said:


> To you, probably not.
> 
> To Americans,  it is a big deal.  It is, as you know, the difference between Freedom and Liberty, that I have and giving that up which you demand.
> 
> ...


BACKGROUND CHECKS:  Which rights does it violate and how?

No, you're not being "facetious," you're being a fool.
So, in your best constitutional language, answer the question honestly and factually (as if)

REPUBLIC:  USSR, Know what the 'R' stands for? Republic of Egypt?  Are you saying the US is a Communist Muslim State?
Or maybe you just make up meanings like the Soviets, and others to suit your current needs?

So, show us your constitutional expertise my little Querdeken.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

Markle said:


> Now you're just being silly, aren't you?


No.
YOU glommed on to the phrase "law abiding gun owner."
I'm just pointing out the absolute truth that 100% of all gun crime can be traced straight back to one or more "law abiding gun owners."
AND
The hypocrisy of complaining about gun crime while insisting on being free to market your guns to criminals.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to your numbers:   About the same as it is with guns.
> 423,000,00 guns in the US; 24,000 are used per year to commit suicide.
> 0.0056% of guns are used to commit suicide; 99.9943% are not
> For every gun used to commit suicide, 17,600 are not
> What's your point?


There you go again.  Lying.

Reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of deaths by suicide.

AS IN

And there are on average 1000 rounds of ammunition (who knows) and that means that for every round used to commit suicide 17M rounds are not.

Absolutely irrelevant and used to promote a lie.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Guns obviously have any number of uses other than to kill people., given how many guns there are and how few of them are used to kill someone.


Describe all the uses, please.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> All of this is a lie.
> 
> ^^^
> This is also a lie, given what these people are doing now is already illegal.


From the top liar.

None of those are lies.  You just wish they were because, you know in your heart, when that 4 yo gets shot tonight, YOU really are responsible along with your millions of fellow walkers.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And commit a federal felony while doing so.


And your point is?

People go to VA from NY to buy guns for resale. 1  crime
People in VA sell those guns KNOWING they'll be carried back to NY. 2 crimes
People then smuggle those firearms back to NY.  3 crimes
People then sell those guns to a willing buyer several crimes

Background checks and registration would eliminate this path for firearm acquisition.

As long as people can move freely from state to state than no state law will be effective.
Federal regulation is necessary.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> BACKGROUND CHECKS:  Which rights does it violate and how?


The same right violated by you bring stopped, w/o resonable suspiction or probable cause,  from walking down the street by a police officer, who then restrains you while he checks to see if you have any outstanding warrants.   If you do not, you may continue walking down the street.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, they are all unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms
> Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the esercise of a right are infringements on said right.
> "Shall not be infringed."
> Tune off Democratic Underground and educate yourself.


So you think criminals should be allowed to buy and own firearms?
What about criminals in prison?
You're opposed to banning firearms in court?
Even for a criminal defendant?

You see, sonny.  Laws and regulations are already in place and they are both necessary and effective.
Gun laws tend to be less effective because you people insist they be ineffective.
Banning tracing of gun ownership
Allowing gun show purchases
Allowing unchecked purchases and transfers

Which is why we go federal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> There you go again.  Lying.


There you go, , avoiding the actual factual data.
Why, oh why do you want to ignore the data?
Is it that you don't understand the data?
Is it that you're too dumb to do third grade math?
Or, most likely
Does the data fail to support the lies you tell.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The same right violated by you bring stopped, w/o resonable suspiction or probable cause,  from walking down the street by a police officer, who then restrains you while he checks to see if you have any outstanding warrants.   If you do not, you may continue walking down the street.


If the officer has probable cause, you have no complaint.
The attempt to purchase a firearm is probable cause to investigate whether you may be a threat.

No violations here.  Try again.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding.


Already done.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I accept your surrender.


See?
Still being irrelevant.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie.


The were do criminals get guns if not from "law abiding" gun owners, liar?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Describe all the uses, please.


I don't have to - federal law does it for me.
Section 101.


			https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiCuLPW_J3zAhVGCM0KHfliDLUQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpkg%2FSTATUTE-82%2Fpdf%2FSTATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ClSkfiOqZ291ypRsSlSCH


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> None of those are lies.


True'
You could simply be ignorant of the fact your statements are false.
So, are you ignorant, or did you lie?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> And your point is?


That is it illegal to do what she(he)? suggest can be doen to avoid state laws
Making it illegal, and then _more _illegal, does not prevent it, as proven by the fact people are willing to commit felonies in the initial process.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> So you think criminals should be allowed to buy and own firearms?


Ah.  You know you cannot meaningfully address what I asid, so you have to make up someting I didn't say and attack that.
I accept your surrender.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> You see, sonny.  Laws and regulations are already in place and they are both necessary and effective.


^^^^
You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true, and thus, you have, again, lied.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Already done.


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 26, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Gun grabbers need an amendment. Full stop.



Name the gun grabbers. See how good you are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> See?
> Still being irrelevant.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> If the officer has probable cause, you have no complaint.


Ah.  You cannot read.  Explains much.

I said:
The same right violated by you bring stopped, *w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause*,  from walking down the street by a police officer, who then restrains you while he checks to see if you have any outstanding warrants.   If you do not, you may continue walking down the street. 

The right violated, above?   That's the right violated by background checks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Name the gun grabbers. See how good you are.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 26, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Name the gun grabbers. See how good you are.


To start any douchbag that says, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment, BUT..."


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Describe all the uses, please.


There are two, that outrank all of yours combined.

1.  I have the right.

2.  Self-defence.

Nuff said.


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Which is why we go federal.


This is why we do not.  Any other discussion by you is extraneous.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 26, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> To start any douchbag that says, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment, BUT..."



Good for you.  Some stupid idiots there's a god also. 

Again, who is grabbing your guns? 
No one.  It's just a unfounded theory you have about the democrats. Piss off with your rubbish. You're a nut.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> REALLLLLY?
> God you are stupid?
> 
> So in your transaction, who is the law abiding gun owner?
> ...




Registration doesn't do anything....you moron....Canada, Pittsburgh, and D.C.....tried registration and all three were disasters and did nothing to solve cxrimes......besides being a tremendous waste of money and time...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

*There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.*

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

*Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.*


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even _theoretically_ helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. 

Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

*Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.*

*During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”*

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> No one lying here but you my Tiny brained Querdeken.
> 
> Social norms matter greatly when talking about suicide.
> 
> ...




I know you are an idiot......but here, let's try again....

Why someone commits suicide does not matter in the discussion of whether guns are making them commit suicide.....Japan limits gun ownership to Yakuza and the police.....yet they still kill themselves at higher rates than we do here....as do about 20 other countries with extreme gun control....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> This isn't canada dickbrain.
> Try focusing on the Us.
> I understand you hate the US but try to stay focused.
> 
> ...



*This isn't canada dickbrain.*

Yes....Canada tried to register just 5 million rifles........and couldn't do it....you idiot.

We have 600 million guns in private hands....over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......not to forget all the other rifle types...

You idiot....

I never said Hitler imposed gun registration you half wit....I keep telling asshats like you that morons in the German government in the 1920s, told the Germans that registering guns would make them safer, and reduce crime.......they also said the lists wouldn't get into the wrong hands...

Then, you doofus...the nationals socialists took control, and used the registration lists.....in 1932 going forward, to take guns away from Jews and the political enemies of the nazis...you idiot.....

Canada.....tried to register only 5 million rifles...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

*The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.*

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

*Myth #4: 

Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.*


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



*Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. *Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

*Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. *If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

*Registries are expensive*. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

*No gun recovered. *If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even _theoretically_ helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

*Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”*

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

*Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.*

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> And your point is?
> 
> People go to VA from NY to buy guns for resale. 1  crime
> People in VA sell those guns KNOWING they'll be carried back to NY. 2 crimes
> ...




Moron...the people buying those guns are straw buyers who can pass any background check.......you idiot......gun registration wouldn't stop them because they wouldn't register the guns that they plan on selling to criminals...you idiot.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, who is grabbing your guns?
> No one.


^^^^
This is a lie, as I provided an example.


----------



## Plow Boy (Sep 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hardly ‘amazing’ – it’s more of the same ignorance and idiotic sophistry:
> 
> Hasty generalization fallacies
> 
> ...


You’re a liar or either a dupe. There is an entire party that wants to ban guns. The Democrats would love to ban all of them.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Good for you.  Some stupid idiots there's a god also.
> 
> Again, who is grabbing your guns?
> No one.  It's just a unfounded theory you have about the democrats. Piss off with your rubbish. You're a nut.



These states...

*Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.*









						In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources
					

Dr. John Lott has a new op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Democrats push for more gun control in Pennsylvania. It gives you an idea what they would do if Democrats took control of the Penns…




					crimeresearch.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hardly ‘amazing’ – it’s more of the same ignorance and idiotic sophistry:


You are a proven liar; as such your meaningless opinions are...  meaningless.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is trying to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ guns.


Another lie.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> These states...
> 
> *Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.*
> 
> ...



"Many" are concerned.  That's a reliable source.
I'll tell you what us entirely unjustified. 
Every time guns are mentioned you all savage the gun shops to buy more guns and ammunition as if theres a civil war started.  
Tell me how you justify that? 
You're a paranoid about your filthy guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Every time guns are mentioned you all savage the gun shops to buy more guns and ammunition as if theres a civil war started.


Unsurprisingly, you have the facts wrong.
Every time there's a mass shooting and a Democrat, bathed in the blood and standing on tbe bodies of the innocent, gets on TV and starts demenading that we ban guns, we take them at their word and go out and buy more guns and ammo.
Why shouldn't we?


Colin norris said:


> You're a paranoid about your filthy guns.


Paranoid?
If you understood the meaning of the term, you'd recognize that when the other side tells you they are going to do what you think they are going to do, acting as of they will go through with it does not qualify.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't have to - federal law does it for me.
> Section 101.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiCuLPW_J3zAhVGCM0KHfliDLUQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpkg%2FSTATUTE-82%2Fpdf%2FSTATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ClSkfiOqZ291ypRsSlSCH


I don't know if you failed to read your link or expected me to.
In either case, your link contains nothing about all the uses for a firearm beyond killing.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> True'
> You could simply be ignorant of the fact your statements are false.
> So, are you ignorant, or did you lie?


I'm speaking to the ignorant.
Not surprising they refuse to see the truth before their eyes.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> That is it illegal to do what she(he)? suggest can be doen to avoid state laws
> Making it illegal, and then _more _illegal, does not prevent it, as proven by the fact people are willing to commit felonies in the initial process.


They do it now.
Making it harder for them to do it will reduce the number of guns they move this way.
Also makes it easier to ID the sellers and buyers.
There is little risk in the criminal side of guns thanks to you and yours.
Increasing that risk and the penalties will cause many to simply get out of the business.
Nothing like a short visit from BATF and the threat of 10 years in a fed lockup to cause one to reconsider the $200 he'll make on that gun.

BUUUUUT
Since you bring it up, should we do away with...
Murder laws, murders still happen
Rape laws
All drug laws
Laws against any theft???????

Your reasoning is silly.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  You know you cannot meaningfully address what I asid, so you have to make up someting I didn't say and attack that.
> I accept your surrender.


I did.
All the laws cannot stop al criminals from obtaining firearms.
So, in your argument, since they won't worn anyway, do away with those laws.
And criminals should be allowed free access to firearms.

Your reasoning and your attempt at escape just got you bitchslapped with your own "logic."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true, and thus, you have, again, lied.


Jesus Fuckin Christ you fucking liar.

YOU posted right up there a link to a federal regulation on guns.
My GOD you are an idiot liar.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie.


And still as irrelevant as ever.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  You cannot read.  Explains much.
> 
> I said:
> The same right violated by you bring stopped, *w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause*,  from walking down the street by a police officer, who then restrains you while he checks to see if you have any outstanding warrants.   If you do not, you may continue walking down the street.
> ...


GOD you are dumb.
The office makes the probable cause determination.
Ever heard of "pretextual stops?"
What do the courts say about pretextual stops?

BUUUUUUUUUUT
If you want the cops to go all LA's finest on you, be my guest.
Tell the cop he doesn't have cause and walk away.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

NOW as for background checks....
You want a gun?  A gun used thousands upon thousands of times each and every year to kill innocent people?
A device whose only function is to kill people?
THAT my Tiny Brained Querdeken IS probable cause.
AND
If you object to the background check
Don't buy the gun.
YOUR choice and none of your rights are violated.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

Markle said:


> There are two, that outrank all of yours combined.
> 
> 1.  I have the right.
> 
> ...


The argument is over all the uses for a firearm.
The suggestion made was to list all the uses.
YOU FAILED.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

Markle said:


> This is why we do not.  Any other discussion by you is extraneous.


Guns are made and sold across state lines.
SORRY
Your failure to understand the Constitution is the source of the problem.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Registration doesn't do anything....you moron....Canada, Pittsburgh, and D.C.....tried registration and all three were disasters and did nothing to solve cxrimes......besides being a tremendous waste of money and time...
> 
> Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
> 
> ...


Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.

I said federal.
But since you bouth it up.  comparing two states with similar populations


StatePopulation
(total inhabitants)
(2015) [2]Murders and
Nonnegligent
Manslaughter
(total deaths)
(2015) [1]Murders
(total deaths)
(2015) [3]Gun Murders
(total deaths)
(2015) [3]Gun
Ownership
(%)
(2013) [4]Murder and
Nonnegligent
Manslaughter
Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)Gun
Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)


Hawaii1,425,1571919445.11.31.30.3
Idaho1,652,82832302456.91.91.81.5

Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho
Driven by a gun ownership rate 6 time higher
And Gun murder rate 50% higher in Idaho.
Whatever Hawaii is doing, including checking gun registrations is working.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I know you are an idiot......but here, let's try again....
> 
> Why someone commits suicide does not matter in the discussion of whether guns are making them commit suicide.....Japan limits gun ownership to Yakuza and the police.....yet they still kill themselves at higher rates than we do here....as do about 20 other countries with extreme gun control....


Speaking of idiots, your uncle dad said to say hi.

Guns are over 82% effective when used in a suicide attempt in the US.
Guns account for more suicide attempts than all other methods combined in the US.
Eliminate the gun and the success rate drops and there will be fewer suicides in the US.

Now if you want to go live in Japan, which seems a fixation of yours, please, have at it.
BUT while you're comparing Japan vs Us states how about...
Total murder rate
Gun crime rates
Total crime rates

Let's show all the cards.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> *This isn't canada dickbrain.*
> 
> Yes....Canada tried to register just 5 million rifles........and couldn't do it....you idiot.
> 
> ...


No matter how much you copy and paste this still isn't Canada OR Japan and 
All your other crap isn't federal.
What part of that escapes your tiny brain?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron...the people buying those guns are straw buyers who can pass any background check.......you idiot......gun registration wouldn't stop them because they wouldn't register the guns that they plan on selling to criminals...you idiot.....


Well then why oppose background checks?
Or registration?
Or Limits on purchases?

If they're not going to work (in your mind) then no harm, no foul.

No constitutional issues
So....

What's the problem?


----------



## hadit (Sep 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> There he goes copying and pasting as if he made sense.
> 
> That, my Tiny Minded Querdenken is why we enhance the laws.
> 
> God, you are stupid even among the Querdenken


He has something from which to quote, do you?


----------



## Markle (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> "Many" are concerned.  That's a reliable source.
> I'll tell you what us entirely unjustified.
> Every time guns are mentioned you all savage the gun shops to buy more guns and ammunition as if theres a civil war started.
> Tell me how you justify that?
> You're a paranoid about your filthy guns.


As you know, women and minorities are the leading purchasers of guns in the US today.

Why not?  You and the rest of the far-left are working hard to destroy our police forces. Murders, violent crime down to shoplifting are running rampant.  Why do you demand that the most vulnerable remain defenseless?


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

Markle said:


> As you know, women and minorities are the leading purchasers of guns in the US today.
> 
> That's not what statistics show. The vast majority is men. Show that evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Markle (Sep 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Well then why oppose background checks?
> Or registration?
> Or Limits on purchases?
> 
> ...


There is no problem, there is still the 2nd Amendment.  What part is not clear to you?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> GOD you are dumb.
> The office makes the probable cause determination.
> Ever heard of "pretextual stops?"
> What do the courts say about pretextual stops?
> ...




*A device whose only function is to kill people?

Moron, guns save more lives in the U.S. than they take....the CDC research states that they are used 1.2 million times a year by law abiding people to stop crime.....rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies and murders.....lives saved, you doofus.....*

Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for _at least_ 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 _trillion_ per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/defensive-gun-use-savings-dwarf-gun-violence-costs/


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.
> 
> I said federal.
> But since you bouth it up.  comparing two states with similar populations
> ...




Moron......I gave you the country of Canada......they couldn't effectivley register just 5 million rifles...

We have over 600 million gun in private hands, and over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......

I also gave you the fact that registration doesn't help the police solve crimes......and you still don't understand it....you are an idiot.


*Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho*

Wrong....shithead.....they don't use the term "Gun Murder," because it isn't gun murder...they use "Gun Deaths..."  First, show us the link to that data.....then I will show you that they use suicide to fake their number.....you idiot.

New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:

Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).


http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?
The same week Kristof's column came out, _National Journal_ attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."
*Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!
Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.*
Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 _JAMA_ _Internal Medicine_ article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.
"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a _Boston Globe_headline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the _Power Line_ blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."
Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with _Slate_ and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."
Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who _have_ guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 _JAMA_ _Internal Medicine_ paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."










Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws. 
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.

*A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation. 

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation. 

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.) *


, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)

*And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

------
*
Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general. 

More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun. 

Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns. 

There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427967/san-bernardino-shooting-guns-homicide-statistics


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.
> 
> I said federal.
> But since you bouth it up.  comparing two states with similar populations
> ...




You aren't comparing similar states, you moron....Hawaii is an isolated island.....you doofus.....

Try Chicago and Houston....you idiot....


----------



## Markle (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.
> 
> I said federal.
> But since you bouth it up.  comparing two states with similar populations
> ...


You seem to demand that you vividly demonstrate your ignorance on a daily basis.

In the last 60s, I lived for several years in Key West.  Even back then we had a much lower murder and crime rate than the rest of the country.  Unless you planned ahead to jump on a plane, where were you going to go?  We didn't have a thousand miles of ocean but we had 42 bridges, one seven miles long and 120 miles.

I lived there for about three years and I cannot recall a single murder.

Please get serious because you just look foolish.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 28, 2021)

hadit said:


> He has something from which to quote, do you?


About what?

He's posted stuff here OBVIOUSLY without reading it.
After the first three times it was obvious.
Since he's not actually reading what he posts his entire functionality is copying and Pasting.

Now, what is it you wanted?

NOTE:  I'm being polite because your question, though intended as an attack, is reasonable.  If it goes further, read the thread.


----------



## hadit (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> About what?
> 
> He's posted stuff here OBVIOUSLY without reading it.
> After the first three times it was obvious.
> ...


I have read the thread, and many others in which he has posted this information. I have noted that those in opposition rarely, if ever, post corroborating information. This can only lead to the conclusion that he has supporting information while they do not and only post their own opinions.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 28, 2021)

Markle said:


> There is no problem, there is still the 2nd Amendment.  What part is not clear to you?


Nothing I've proposed violates anyone's rights nor does does it bar anyone legally permitted to own form owning a weapon.

If you believe otherwise please show me the quote.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> *A device whose only function is to kill people?
> 
> Moron, guns save more lives in the U.S. than they take....the CDC research states that they are used 1.2 million times a year by law abiding people to stop crime.....rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies and murders.....lives saved, you doofus.....*
> 
> ...


Yeah, a firearm's only legitimate function is to kill.

Saves lives?
Stops crime?

How?  
By killing or threatening to kill people.

AND...
A bunch of made up numbers from a bunch of gun propagandists?
You gotta be kidding!

Once again, what are a firearm's common uses beyond killing and threatening to kill?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron......I gave you the country of Canada......they couldn't effectivley register just 5 million rifles...
> 
> We have over 600 million gun in private hands, and over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......
> 
> ...


This ain't canada either Cap'n Copy/Paste.

REMEMBER, they're socialists, the like the environment, they stayed with the agreements Trump dropped.  

When you're ready to talk about the good old USA, let us know ya dumbass!


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You aren't comparing similar states, you moron....Hawaii is an isolated island.....you doofus.....
> 
> Try Chicago and Houston....you idiot....


Hmmm

Pretty sure Chicago and Houston are not states
AND
So you acknowledge my claim that the reason gun control cannot work at the state level is because the states are NOT ISOLATED and transporting firearms illegally across state lines is easy and almost risk free.

SEE?  I knew we could get a cogent thought out of you once you ran out of copy/paste material.


----------



## hadit (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Yeah, a firearm's only legitimate function is to kill.
> 
> Saves lives?
> Stops crime?
> ...


A firearm's use is to propel a small projectile at high velocities. That's it. You have completely ignored one of the most widely used functions of firearms, and that is shooting at targets to demonstrate skill. Have you never heard of the winter olympic games, the biathlon?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 28, 2021)

Markle said:


> You seem to demand that you vividly demonstrate your ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> In the last 60s, I lived for several years in Key West.  Even back then we had a much lower murder and crime rate than the rest of the country.  Unless you planned ahead to jump on a plane, where were you going to go?  We didn't have a thousand miles of ocean but we had 42 bridges, one seven miles long and 120 miles.
> 
> ...


When I was young I lived in Pittsburgh and would ride the bus downtown so I could fish at point park.

Oh, I'm sorry.  This isn't the thread for posting irrelevancies?


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And only 10,258 died from gun murder, the rest were suicides, you dumb moron.....


There's a fucking coroner's verdict with a cursory autopsy by a county medical examiner and state's rights to refuse a federal murder investigation.


----------



## Markle (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Nothing I've proposed violates anyone's rights nor does does it bar anyone legally permitted to own form owning a weapon.
> 
> If you believe otherwise please show me the quote.


Once again, for your reluctant edification.


----------



## Markle (Sep 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> When I was young I lived in Pittsburgh and would ride the bus downtown so I could fish at point park.
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry.  This isn't the thread for posting irrelevancies?


You're the one who used an island, over 2,400 miles from land to show a gun crime rate compared to what?  That was an irrelevancy, was it not?

Pay back is heck!


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Hmmm
> 
> Pretty sure Chicago and Houston are not states
> AND
> ...




Nope.....Canada can't keep guns out, Britain can't keep guns out.......British police, on their island, state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns.....you doofus.

Are you really this stupid in real life?


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Good for you.  Some stupid idiots there's a god also.
> 
> Again, who is grabbing your guns?
> No one.  It's just a unfounded theory you have about the democrats. Piss off with your rubbish. You're a nut.


Fuck off you useless troll.  Are you even an American?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Not sure what that video says about what Joe knows about guns. Seems that the gun nuts making that video should have known better than to allow such unsafe use of guns.


That video is pretty solid proof that a shotgun is not the answer for a small person.

Don't deliberately miss the point.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That video is pretty solid proof that a shotgun is not the answer for a small person.
> 
> Don't deliberately miss the point.


It's solid proof that training in it's proper use should be required.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That video is pretty solid proof that a shotgun is not the answer for a small person.
> Don't deliberately miss the point.


A 'smaller' person is almost always better served bt an AR15 carbine or pistol in 9/40/45/10mm
In fact, for most people in most situations, such an AR is a better choice than a shotgun.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It's solid proof that training in it's proper use should be required.



No.  Europe uses traing requirements to keep people from owning the few bird shotguns they allow..  si no.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No.  Europe uses traing requirements to keep people from owning the few bird shotguns they allow..  si no.


So now you're saying that requiring knowledge of how to use a gun safely is a bad thing. You're goofier each day.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Fuck off you useless troll.  Are you even an American?


Would you like to address my post or just rant because you can't? 

There is no compulsion or rules that says anyone has to be American to post here.  You don't own the forum so piss off dickhead.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Would you like to address my post or just rant because you can't?
> 
> There is no compulsion or rules that says anyone has to be American to post here.  You don't own the forum so piss off dickhead.


I don't waste my time addressing American rights with those from lesser nations.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> I don't waste my time addressing American rights with those from lesser nations.



I agree.  That's why I am an American. 
Would  you like to address them with an American of higher intelligence  than you? 

My point is you have nothing to discuss. You're still romancing  the 2nd for its warm inner glow charasteristics and it's ego stroking facilities. 

Does that sound like someone from a lesser nation you self assessed pompous ignorant fool.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I agree.  That's why I am an American.
> Would  you like to address them with an American of higher intelligence  than you?
> 
> My point is you have nothing to discuss. You're still romancing  the 2nd for its warm inner glow charasteristics and it's ego stroking facilities.
> ...


What's to discuss? You want change, get an amendment. I doubt you have more intelligence than the average house cat.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 29, 2021)

Markle said:


> Once again, for your reluctant edification.


And, once again, please demonstrate where any of the proposals violates the rights of anyone legally allowed to own a firearm.

OR

Just admit your an NRA propagandist and your lies aren't really your own.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 29, 2021)

Markle said:


> You're the one who used an island, over 2,400 miles from land to show a gun crime rate compared to what?  That was an irrelevancy, was it not?
> 
> Pay back is heck!


Irrelevant?

The comparison and the response PROVED that federal gun control is all that will work.

If Hawaii were carved up into sections with different laws none of them would be enforceable.  AS admitted in the response.

so...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope.....Canada can't keep guns out, Britain can't keep guns out.......British police, on their island, state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns.....you doofus.
> 
> Are you really this stupid in real life?


"In America in 2017, there were almost *11,000 *gun deaths. In the UK, in the year to March 2019, a total of *33* people died as result of gun crime."

The gun death rate in the UK in 2016 was 0.17 per 100k people.  Not a single state in the US had a gun death rate below 3.4 per 100k.

Putting the US gun death rate at 20x the Britain rate.

What was your point again?
I mean beyond being a shill for the NRA.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> My point is you have nothing to discuss. You're still romancing  the 2nd for its warm inner glow charasteristics and it's ego stroking facilities.


If you are looking for a better way to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being than you statement, above,  you wont fins one.


----------

