Best argument against gun control. Nothing else needs to be said.

[Slade3200]

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame.

But that statement is 180 degrees from where the people are actually going and you have not been following. CC is being voted for by American citizens in suburbia. wow, can't make your shit up.

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

 

[2aguy]

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame.

But that statement is 180 degrees from where the people are actually going and you have not been following. CC is being voted for by American citizens in suburbia. wow, can't make your shit up.

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

 

[Slade3200]

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

They don't know the truth about people who own and carry guns..... consider the fact that law abiding gun carriers are more law abiding than sworn police officers and you can start to see how wrong people are.....and here is more truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Are you trying to claim that the crime rates are directly related to gun ownership?

There are about a dozen studies that show that concealed carry helps to lower the crime rate...but that isn't the point of those stats....

What those statistics show is that law abiding gun owners owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate......which is the core belief of anti gunners.....their entire argument is based on the lie that more guns = more gun crime....and our history, and the history of Britain shows this isn't true.

I don’t believe that. I’m fine with law abiding citizens having guns. It’s unstable people that worry me

 

[Slade3200]

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame.

But that statement is 180 degrees from where the people are actually going and you have not been following. CC is being voted for by American citizens in suburbia. wow, can't make your shit up.

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

 

[2aguy]

civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame.

But that statement is 180 degrees from where the people are actually going and you have not been following. CC is being voted for by American citizens in suburbia. wow, can't make your shit up.

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...

 

[Slade3200]

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

Again.... 1 situation out of 320 million people.....

And 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.....where law abiding people can't carry guns, and where time is of the essence in stopping a mass shooter......you have no argument with Trump..... of all the mass shootings, the ones with the lowest amount of casualties are the ones with a law abiding citizen on site with a gun.......

I have a great argument with Yrump that you keep dodging. Your comparing to mass shooters and I’m speaking to regulations that prevented the man from buying a gun (that worked) and the venue being a gun free zone which prevented guns from going in.

It sounds to me like you would support the crowds right to carry. Probably make the point that if they did they could defend themselves against a shooter. But that would also allow a shooter intending to do harm to actually do the harm

 

[Slade3200]

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

 

[2aguy]

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

Again.... 1 situation out of 320 million people.....

And 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.....where law abiding people can't carry guns, and where time is of the essence in stopping a mass shooter......you have no argument with Trump..... of all the mass shootings, the ones with the lowest amount of casualties are the ones with a law abiding citizen on site with a gun.......

I have a great argument with Yrump that you keep dodging. Your comparing to mass shooters and I’m speaking to regulations that prevented the man from buying a gun (that worked) and the venue being a gun free zone which prevented guns from going in.

It sounds to me like you would support the crowds right to carry. Probably make the point that if they did they could defend themselves against a shooter. But that would also allow a shooter intending to do harm to actually do the harm

Dr. John Lott makes this argument......different shooting threats require different preventative measures...a lone shooter trying to kill the President is completely different from a mass shooter walking into a democrat gun free zone.....you don't use the same measures for both.....

Mass shooters looking for a high body count can be stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun, and by allowing normal, law abiding citizens to carry guns into public spaces, they keep mass shooters from attacking in the first place....

A Presidential Assassin isn't looking to kill lots of people, just one. And the time it would take to shoot the President wouldn't allow armed citizens to react in time...

You have no argument....an attack on Trump is 1 out of 320 million people....while daily crime is stopped...actually stopped by law abiding citizens 2.4 million times a year, according to the CDC..... do you see how you have no argument....

And mass shooters, where law abiding citizens have their legal guns, are stopped with lower body counts by those armed citizens.......

You have no argument....

Ahead of NRA speeches by Trump, Pence hypocritical media get it wrong on gun ban

But there is an obvious and very simple response. Protecting the president and vice president of the United States from assassination is not the same as protecting a group of people from a mass public shooting or protecting you or me from being robbed on a dark street.

First, the president and vice president already have armed Secret Service agents flooding an area and guarding each of them. Local police are also always on hand to help provide security. Ordinary citizens don’t have this kind of protection.

Second, if a shooter has only one big target, the attack might be over with a single shot before gun permit holders have a chance to respond. So having armed NRA members in the audience for the Trump and Pence speeches wouldn’t provide any protection to the president and vice president beyond what the Secret Service and police already provide.

By contrast, mass public shooters are trying to kill as many people as possible. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they receive. If the target is protected by a couple of uniformed officers, killers will know to take out the officers first.

Alternatively, mass shooters can move on to an unprotected target. This gives them a strategic advantage that can only be taken away by the presence of concealed handgun permit holders. When that happens, killers don’t know who to attack first – and don’t know who might shoot back.

When you take away the ability of mass public shooters to kill or injure many people, you take away their publicity and their motivation for carrying out these attacks.

There are 17 million permitted concealed handgun holders in the U.S., versus about 650,000 police officers. So permit holders are much more likely to be at the scene of an attack against ordinary citizens.

The media refuse to include any information about how gun-free zones are targeted for mass public shootings. You would never know that 97 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to today have occurred in places where ordinary citizens aren’t allowed to have guns.

Gun permit holders are allowed to carry almost everywhere in right-to-carry states, but the attacks keep occurring in those tiny areas where they can’t protect themselves.

The national media ignore the statements from killers explaining why they pick the targets that they do. The gun control debate would be very different if the news media would mention these facts.

 

[2aguy]

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

Yes...because everyone lives in that area, and they all have Rights...... but they can't say that only Whites can speak and Blacks can't, just to see how that works out.

The only reason they can have permits is because the people want to use a public space that others may also want to use, and they also have to provide for the police protection and crowd control services on that date...

There is nothing in common with those things and owning and carrying a gun.

You have no point...

You can have lewd photos, and it isn't an offense until you violate another individuals Rights with it....dittos a gun....my carrying a gun is not violating anyone elses Right in a public space.....

You have no argument, you have no point....

 

[Pop23]

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

The noise issue is completely different. No one is limiting your speech, they are limiting your volume, which is not a limitation of speech, it limits one person from devaluing the property of another. It's like yelling fire in a Theater. That is legal as long as you are actually reporting a fire, illegal if being done to harm others through panic.

Lewd images can be restricted without violating your freedom, not because its an attempt to limit speech, but an attempt to protect those with diminished capabilities (in this case the young). The law will almost always make this a priority since they are to young to make independent decision. The forums you refer to are personal property as well. You do not have constitutionally protected rights when entering someone elses property. You actually make the decision to leave your rights at the door before entering, and can leave if you object.

Permits are required as well as you, again are on "private" property. The property however is owned "in common" with the rest of the public, and your "group" although they could meet elsewhere, want's to restrict the right of others free use of the "public square". To do that, they require permit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

But, prior restraint is universally illegal. So, your examples suck.

Never has there been a push to infringe on a right guaranteed to millions because of the actions of a few other than the gun-grabbing bullshit. Name one.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes...because everyone lives in that area, and they all have Rights...... but they can't say that only Whites can speak and Blacks can't, just to see how that works out.

The only reason they can have permits is because the people want to use a public space that others may also want to use, and they also have to provide for the police protection and crowd control services on that date...

There is nothing in common with those things and owning and carrying a gun.

You have no point...

You can have lewd photos, and it isn't an offense until you violate another individuals Rights with it....dittos a gun....my carrying a gun is not violating anyone elses Right in a public space.....

You have no argument, you have no point....

Next they will assert a superior right to feel safe and use that as a means to infringe.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

Again.... 1 situation out of 320 million people.....

And 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.....where law abiding people can't carry guns, and where time is of the essence in stopping a mass shooter......you have no argument with Trump..... of all the mass shootings, the ones with the lowest amount of casualties are the ones with a law abiding citizen on site with a gun.......

I have a great argument with Yrump that you keep dodging. Your comparing to mass shooters and I’m speaking to regulations that prevented the man from buying a gun (that worked) and the venue being a gun free zone which prevented guns from going in.

It sounds to me like you would support the crowds right to carry. Probably make the point that if they did they could defend themselves against a shooter. But that would also allow a shooter intending to do harm to actually do the harm

Dr. John Lott makes this argument......different shooting threats require different preventative measures...a lone shooter trying to kill the President is completely different from a mass shooter walking into a democrat gun free zone.....you don't use the same measures for both.....

Mass shooters looking for a high body count can be stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun, and by allowing normal, law abiding citizens to carry guns into public spaces, they keep mass shooters from attacking in the first place....

A Presidential Assassin isn't looking to kill lots of people, just one. And the time it would take to shoot the President wouldn't allow armed citizens to react in time...

You have no argument....an attack on Trump is 1 out of 320 million people....while daily crime is stopped...actually stopped by law abiding citizens 2.4 million times a year, according to the CDC..... do you see how you have no argument....

And mass shooters, where law abiding citizens have their legal guns, are stopped with lower body counts by those armed citizens.......

You have no argument....

Ahead of NRA speeches by Trump, Pence hypocritical media get it wrong on gun ban

But there is an obvious and very simple response. Protecting the president and vice president of the United States from assassination is not the same as protecting a group of people from a mass public shooting or protecting you or me from being robbed on a dark street.

First, the president and vice president already have armed Secret Service agents flooding an area and guarding each of them. Local police are also always on hand to help provide security. Ordinary citizens don’t have this kind of protection.

Second, if a shooter has only one big target, the attack might be over with a single shot before gun permit holders have a chance to respond. So having armed NRA members in the audience for the Trump and Pence speeches wouldn’t provide any protection to the president and vice president beyond what the Secret Service and police already provide.

By contrast, mass public shooters are trying to kill as many people as possible. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they receive. If the target is protected by a couple of uniformed officers, killers will know to take out the officers first.

Alternatively, mass shooters can move on to an unprotected target. This gives them a strategic advantage that can only be taken away by the presence of concealed handgun permit holders. When that happens, killers don’t know who to attack first – and don’t know who might shoot back.

When you take away the ability of mass public shooters to kill or injure many people, you take away their publicity and their motivation for carrying out these attacks.

There are 17 million permitted concealed handgun holders in the U.S., versus about 650,000 police officers. So permit holders are much more likely to be at the scene of an attack against ordinary citizens.

The media refuse to include any information about how gun-free zones are targeted for mass public shootings. You would never know that 97 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to today have occurred in places where ordinary citizens aren’t allowed to have guns.

Gun permit holders are allowed to carry almost everywhere in right-to-carry states, but the attacks keep occurring in those tiny areas where they can’t protect themselves.

The national media ignore the statements from killers explaining why they pick the targets that they do. The gun control debate would be very different if the news media would mention these facts.

You’re either not getting what I’m saying or you are trying to weave around it. The dude wanted to go kill somebody. He wasn’t able to do so because he wasn’t able to walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s a win for the regulation that prevented him from getting the gun. Copy and paste as much as you want but you can’t deny that fact

 

[Slade3200]

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

Yes...because everyone lives in that area, and they all have Rights...... but they can't say that only Whites can speak and Blacks can't, just to see how that works out.

The only reason they can have permits is because the people want to use a public space that others may also want to use, and they also have to provide for the police protection and crowd control services on that date...

There is nothing in common with those things and owning and carrying a gun.

You have no point...

You can have lewd photos, and it isn't an offense until you violate another individuals Rights with it....dittos a gun....my carrying a gun is not violating anyone elses Right in a public space.....

You have no argument, you have no point....

I have a very simple point which you are ignoring but also kind of validating. The right of speech has limitations, you just laid out the justifications for the limitations... that’s fine. But you just proved my point that our rights are limited by laws and regulations.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You’re either not getting what I’m saying or you are trying to weave around it. The dude wanted to go kill somebody. He wasn’t able to do so because he wasn’t able to walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s a win for the regulation that prevented him from getting the gun. Copy and paste as much as you want but you can’t deny that fact

The same result may have occurred by a law placing all Americans is jail with the intent of preventing gun violence. That doesn't make the law proper.

 

[Slade3200]

If you want to make it a federal issue then that’s fine but I think it’s appropriate for state and local governments to make these kind of decisions about how they regulate guns. It’s how we learn about what works and what doesn’t before we make nationwide law.

Guns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.

Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law

Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

The noise issue is completely different. No one is limiting your speech, they are limiting your volume, which is not a limitation of speech, it limits one person from devaluing the property of another. It's like yelling fire in a Theater. That is legal as long as you are actually reporting a fire, illegal if being done to harm others through panic.

Lewd images can be restricted without violating your freedom, not because its an attempt to limit speech, but an attempt to protect those with diminished capabilities (in this case the young). The law will almost always make this a priority since they are to young to make independent decision. The forums you refer to are personal property as well. You do not have constitutionally protected rights when entering someone elses property. You actually make the decision to leave your rights at the door before entering, and can leave if you object.

Permits are required as well as you, again are on "private" property. The property however is owned "in common" with the rest of the public, and your "group" although they could meet elsewhere, want's to restrict the right of others free use of the "public square". To do that, they require permit.

Agreed, each of the points I laid out have justified limitations that you just laid out. I was making the simple point that our rights are not absolute and are subject to limitations and regulations by law.

 

[Slade3200]

The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?

But, prior restraint is universally illegal. So, your examples suck.

Never has there been a push to infringe on a right guaranteed to millions because of the actions of a few other than the gun-grabbing bullshit. Name one.

Yelling fire in a theater... yelling bomb on a plane. There’s two

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yelling fire in a theater... yelling bomb on a plane. There’s two

Neither of those scenarios involve laws that prevent a person from speaking. They only punish a person for doing so without justification.

 

[Slade3200]

Yelling fire in a theater... yelling bomb on a plane. There’s two

Neither of those scenarios involve laws that prevent a person from speaking. They only punish a person for doing so without justification.

Yup, and gun control doesn’t allow the average person to walk around with machine guns and if they do they will be arrested

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yup, and gun control doesn’t allow the average person to walk around with machine guns and if they do they will be arrested

Is walking around with a machine gun by itself evil and/or an infringement on the rights of others?

That works just like prior restraint, and prevents the exercise of a right without justification.