Australian teen shoots Australian police officer...but they don't have guns, right?

[2aguy]

It is culture….and the democrat party…they create single teenage mothers for generations through their welfare programs, then they strip the police of their ability to keep a lid on inner city violence and then the criminal culture hear uses guns to enforce drug turf…..and they use them more often than the criminals in Europe do.

30 of the 50 governors are republicans. They have no control over what happens in their states?

European criminals can get guns just as easily as criminals in the United States do……they get fully automatic rifles and grenades very easily as we have been seeing in the various mass shootings in Europe and the gang warfare in Marseilles and Sweden…and other European countries…

Patently false. You can no go to a store in Helsinki and walk out with a weapon. Here you can.

Why don't they use guns as often as our criminals do….I think they are starting to….Europe is behind the United STates in criminal violence and they are catching up. Dittos Australia.

The murder by firearm rate in Australia will have to increase 2100% to equal ours.

Republican governors do not control democrat controlled cities…..just like here in Illinois our republican Governor does not dictate police policy on the mayor……Chicago needs 2,000 more police, we are down 1000 due to not having them, and another 1000 because of vacation and sick leave, then you have the gangs in the Wards picking their aldermen who represent them in City hall, blocking police enforcement measures…

So no…having a Republican governor doesn't protect those cities….like D.C. we have a republican congress but D.C. is run by democrats.

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

 

[candycorn]

30 of the 50 governors are republicans. They have no control over what happens in their states?
Patently false. You can no go to a store in Helsinki and walk out with a weapon. Here you can.

The murder by firearm rate in Australia will have to increase 2100% to equal ours.

Republican governors do not control democrat controlled cities…..just like here in Illinois our republican Governor does not dictate police policy on the mayor……Chicago needs 2,000 more police, we are down 1000 due to not having them, and another 1000 because of vacation and sick leave, then you have the gangs in the Wards picking their aldermen who represent them in City hall, blocking police enforcement measures…

So no…having a Republican governor doesn't protect those cities….like D.C. we have a republican congress but D.C. is run by democrats.

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

 

[2aguy]

Republican governors do not control democrat controlled cities…..just like here in Illinois our republican Governor does not dictate police policy on the mayor……Chicago needs 2,000 more police, we are down 1000 due to not having them, and another 1000 because of vacation and sick leave, then you have the gangs in the Wards picking their aldermen who represent them in City hall, blocking police enforcement measures…

So no…having a Republican governor doesn't protect those cities….like D.C. we have a republican congress but D.C. is run by democrats.

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

 

[idb]

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

 

[jon_berzerk]

He wasn't even a native australian...he was an iranian "immigrant"....

--LOL

even better

--LOL

 

[2aguy]

Republican governors do not control democrat controlled cities…..just like here in Illinois our republican Governor does not dictate police policy on the mayor……Chicago needs 2,000 more police, we are down 1000 due to not having them, and another 1000 because of vacation and sick leave, then you have the gangs in the Wards picking their aldermen who represent them in City hall, blocking police enforcement measures…

So no…having a Republican governor doesn't protect those cities….like D.C. we have a republican congress but D.C. is run by democrats.

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

How do you explain Puerto Rico....according to VICE t.v. Puerto Rico is an island nation...geography doesn't work for them since they are surrounded by an ocean....they have stricter gun control laws than the rest of the continental United States....you can't just drive across a border to get a gun and guns for civilians are prohibited....

and they have the highest gun murder rate in the world.....

Explain that.

it isn't guns....

The Problem with Chicago is that it is the biggest hub for heroine in the midwest and it is run by the Sinaloa cartel......add to that you have the street gangs picking which people they want to be the aldermen of their wards.....with that control they limit police resources in manpower and equipment in their areas of control...and the Aldermen also lean on the police to release gang members, and then supply the gangs with their clout to keep them out of jail........

Add to that the prosecutors and judges do not sentence gun criminals to long prison sentences....the Police Commissioner just bitched about that last week and I heard him discuss the problem on the Roe Conn show on WGN. He said the guy who shot Hidea Pendleton, in obama's neighborhood, was arrested for gun possession in November, and was out by January when he shot Pendleton.....

He also said that 30 guys this year alone were arrested for illegal gun possession and they were found to have had previous illegal gun possession convictions...

It is not guns that are the problem.......

Considering the gun murder is isolated to tiny areas of the city......

 

[jon_berzerk]

Republican governors do not control democrat controlled cities…..just like here in Illinois our republican Governor does not dictate police policy on the mayor……Chicago needs 2,000 more police, we are down 1000 due to not having them, and another 1000 because of vacation and sick leave, then you have the gangs in the Wards picking their aldermen who represent them in City hall, blocking police enforcement measures…

So no…having a Republican governor doesn't protect those cities….like D.C. we have a republican congress but D.C. is run by democrats.

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

that is a bunch of hogwash

 

[2aguy]

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

You guys...all the time.....and don't say you guys don't we have to explain that it doesn't all the time.

 

[2aguy]

Republican governors do not control democrat controlled cities…..just like here in Illinois our republican Governor does not dictate police policy on the mayor……Chicago needs 2,000 more police, we are down 1000 due to not having them, and another 1000 because of vacation and sick leave, then you have the gangs in the Wards picking their aldermen who represent them in City hall, blocking police enforcement measures…

So no…having a Republican governor doesn't protect those cities….like D.C. we have a republican congress but D.C. is run by democrats.

Do republican governors do anything? Apparently public safety isn't their job, education isn't their job, responding to hurricanes isn't their job, infrastructure isn't their job...

Last I checked, state laws superseded local ordinances.

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Going back to the topic of the thread Candy...how did the 15 year old immigrant teenager get the hand gun in Australia.....since they confiscated them and they are also an island nation?

How did geography get him that gun?

 

[idb]

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

You guys...all the time.....and don't say you guys don't we have to explain that it doesn't all the time.

I don't recall anyone saying that.
I might be wrong...but I don't remember it being said.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

You guys...all the time.....and don't say you guys don't we have to explain that it doesn't all the time.

I don't recall anyone saying that.
I might be wrong...but I don't remember it being said.

They always say that there gun control ideas will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.....believe me, I have been explaining why they are wrong in post after post.

 

[idb]

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

You guys...all the time.....and don't say you guys don't we have to explain that it doesn't all the time.

I don't recall anyone saying that.
I might be wrong...but I don't remember it being said.

They always say that there gun control ideas will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.....believe me, I have been explaining why they are wrong in post after post.

Maybe you've been arguing against yourself all this time.

 

[Rotagilla]

Nope….Chicago has there own laws about guns…..as does D.C. and Baltimore……and any number of big cities.

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

 

[idb]

Oh, okay. So state laws do not apply to the cities. Fascinating view of society you have there.

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

 

[Rotagilla]

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

what new laws would you propose?

 

[idb]

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

what new laws would you propose?

How about universal background checks as a start?
Does it matter though, would you accept any suggestions at all?

 

[2aguy]

Yeah….sometimes they don't apply…for years Chicago was the only part of the State that didn't allow people to own pistols….it didn't stop the gang members but law abiding citizens were limited to shotguns and they even had restrictions on that….also…chicago still won't let gun stores open in the city…they are currently in court over that…

D.C……..lost a court case and have been ordered to allow people to own guns and to carry guns….they have fought both and are still refusing to allow concealed carry permits…..

So yes…there is a lot of differences in a state where you have a red state with blue cities.

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

We already do. We have laws on the books that mandate a background check for all purchases at licensed dealers....and it does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters.

Criminals use people with clean records to buy their guns, or criminal gun dealers sell them the guns illegally and that makes the mandated federal background checks worthless...and it will make Universal Background checks worthless too...when they are caught they are arrested.

Mass shooters.....they all either undergo all the gun control laws on the books...and then kill...or they buy their guns illegally, thereby avoiding background checks, or they steal their guns......evey single one.

For example...this guy....passed federal mandated background checks....and if you forced all gun owners to get a license...he would have either gotten the license or ignored it....and you could force all guns to be registered..and he would have registered his guns or ignored it and still shot people.

Under current law, anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime can be arrested and jailed. We have that right now without new laws.

Under current law, felons caught in possession of a gun can be arrested and jailed on the spot....we don't need any new laws to do that.

We blame the mentally ill and criminals because they are the actual people doing the killing.....90% of shooters have at least one arrest and almost all of them are career criminals. The nuts....can usually pass background checks because they are never locked up in an institution.

Law abiding, normal people are not going out and shooting people simply because they buy a gun. Almost all shooters have long records of crime and violence...they are not normal people.

That is where the anti gun crowd gets it wrong......they see anyone who wants to own a gun as being the same as actual criminal murderers...but they are not the same, not even close.

Sadly, they target all of their gun control at the normal people who buy guns......and ignore the real problem of criminals.....

 

[idb]

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

We already do. We have laws on the books that mandate a background check for all purchases at licensed dealers....and it does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters.

Criminals use people with clean records to buy their guns, or criminal gun dealers sell them the guns illegally and that makes the mandated federal background checks worthless...and it will make Universal Background checks worthless too...when they are caught they are arrested.

Mass shooters.....they all either undergo all the gun control laws on the books...and then kill...or they buy their guns illegally, thereby avoiding background checks, or they steal their guns......evey single one.

For example...this guy....passed federal mandated background checks....and if you forced all gun owners to get a license...he would have either gotten the license or ignored it....and you could force all guns to be registered..and he would have registered his guns or ignored it and still shot people.

Under current law, anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime can be arrested and jailed. We have that right now without new laws.

Under current law, felons caught in possession of a gun can be arrested and jailed on the spot....we don't need any new laws to do that.

We blame the mentally ill and criminals because they are the actual people doing the killing.....90% of shooters have at least one arrest and almost all of them are career criminals. The nuts....can usually pass background checks because they are never locked up in an institution.

Law abiding, normal people are not going out and shooting people simply because they buy a gun. Almost all shooters have long records of crime and violence...they are not normal people.

That is where the anti gun crowd gets it wrong......they see anyone who wants to own a gun as being the same as actual criminal murderers...but they are not the same, not even close.

Sadly, they target all of their gun control at the normal people who buy guns......and ignore the real problem of criminals.....

Law abiding, normal people are not going out and shooting people simply because they buy a gun. Almost all shooters have long records of crime and violence...they are not normal people.

So, why wouldn't you want to put in place mechanisms to prevent them from obtaining weapons?

 

[idb]

No; the difference is simple geography. When you have a state that won't ban weapons and a city that will, criminals simply acquire the guns in the State and bring them into the city. Thanks to Walker, they can probably buy them in Wisconsin. Thanks to Daniels, they can probably get them in Indiana too.

When you have entire nations that regulate weapons, you end up like Europe where you have very few massacres (if any) and not these monthly bloodbaths.

Its really that simple.

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

We already do. We have laws on the books that mandate a background check for all purchases at licensed dealers....and it does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters.

Criminals use people with clean records to buy their guns, or criminal gun dealers sell them the guns illegally and that makes the mandated federal background checks worthless...and it will make Universal Background checks worthless too...when they are caught they are arrested.

Mass shooters.....they all either undergo all the gun control laws on the books...and then kill...or they buy their guns illegally, thereby avoiding background checks, or they steal their guns......evey single one.

For example...this guy....passed federal mandated background checks....and if you forced all gun owners to get a license...he would have either gotten the license or ignored it....and you could force all guns to be registered..and he would have registered his guns or ignored it and still shot people.

Under current law, anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime can be arrested and jailed. We have that right now without new laws.

Under current law, felons caught in possession of a gun can be arrested and jailed on the spot....we don't need any new laws to do that.

We blame the mentally ill and criminals because they are the actual people doing the killing.....90% of shooters have at least one arrest and almost all of them are career criminals. The nuts....can usually pass background checks because they are never locked up in an institution.

Law abiding, normal people are not going out and shooting people simply because they buy a gun. Almost all shooters have long records of crime and violence...they are not normal people.

That is where the anti gun crowd gets it wrong......they see anyone who wants to own a gun as being the same as actual criminal murderers...but they are not the same, not even close.

Sadly, they target all of their gun control at the normal people who buy guns......and ignore the real problem of criminals.....

That is where the anti gun crowd gets it wrong......they see anyone who wants to own a gun as being the same as actual criminal murderers...but they are not the same, not even close

This is your paranoid imagination at work.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry...doesn't work that way....you guys tell us that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns....Chicago has strict gun control laws in the city....that means...according to you guys, that criminals can't get guns in chicago. Notice as well....that there are cities in states with less gun control that have lower gun murder rates than chicago...and those states have gun stores all over their states...while chicago still won't let gun stores open up inside city limits......so in states where people can carry guns, and buy guns in the state, and they don't even have to leave the state to buy guns........they have lower gun murder rates than chicago with strict gun control laws....that blows your point all to shit.....

Who says that gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns?

why is the left so intent on passing MORE laws, then?

Maybe...just maybe they want to have a mechanism to restrict access to guns by the wrong people.
It can't be a perfect law, none ever are, but advocates of unrestricted access to guns are always blaming the mentally ill and criminals for most of the gun violence in the US.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to restrict access to those people while still allowing law-abiding folk to own guns?
Again, I say, it won't be perfect but at least it allows some means of scrutiny of the recipients of weapons.

what new laws would you propose?

How about universal background checks as a start?
Does it matter though, would you accept any suggestions at all?

Currently, criminals either steal their guns, buy them illegally, or use a friend or family member with a clean record to buy their gun...

In all of these techniques they avoid the federally mandated background checks and get their guns faster than a normal person can.

Universal Background checks will be gotten around the same exact way....they will steal the guns, buy them illegally or get someone with a clean record to buy them for them........

So the anti gun activists use the term "universal background checks" as if it is going to be something new and useful....it will be useless the minute you put it on the books....

And in fact...it has already been shown to be useless...

Washington State has universal background checks....and I posted about a teenager who got a gun in this state when his father lied on the background check information form....he got around the universal background check...

Oregon just passed Universal Background checks.....and not only are they having a hard time implementing it.....the mass shooter at the 2 year college....would have passed the new and improved universal background check.

So universal background checks are pointless.

the best thing to do to stop gun crime....long prison sentences for criminals caught with guns......that is the only thing that works.