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

[2aguy]

A bit of a typo. What would passing those accomplish?

Most are already in place, like the regulations on Autos and the fact you can’t just legally buy them on the street or at the local sporting goods store. I believe we are safer because of that. Same goes for the others. Regulations either make the weapons safer or less accessible to those who shouldn’t own them. It’s not a hard concept to understand. I believe we have had this discussion before

Vehicle ownership is a privilege, not an right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves…
You need to be better educated…

You are such a predictable parrot. My statement had nothing to do with our rights to do anything. We were talking about whether laws and regulations were effective in reducing casualties. How about you stop with the mindless talking points and try listening for a change.

Frivolous gun control laws have never saved a single soul…

How about the non frivolous gun control laws? Which ones are you cool with?

Here is the best of the best gun control laws.... if you are caught using a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery or murder, you know, actual crimes..... you go to prison for 30 years.

If you are a prohibited person caught with an illegal gun, you go to prison for 30 years.

Those two actions will reduce our gun crime even lower than it is already being lowered by law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Then, we end democrat gun free zones...and allow those who are able to carry guns legally to carry their legal guns wherever they go.....that will end mass public shootings...for the most part...we know this from the actual statements of mass shooters and from their notes.


Those few items are all we need..... we don't need anything else.

 

[2aguy]

We NEED Guns to STOP gun violence? So sez the NRA, So conversely, if we didn't have gun violence, we wound't need guns? Talk about a cyclical argument. I want to just repeal the second amendment. No more mass shootings, no more bullets in my house. No more dead school kids, it a win-win situation all around.

Do you understand that Britain did what you want? They banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has gone up, not down. Their violence against innocent people has gone up, not down.....

In France, fully automatic military weapons are completely illegal.....you can't buy them at a store or a gun show..... and they are the most popular weapons among French criminals.....

Criminals will use guns..... banning them only takes them away from good people who don't use them for crime....

 

[Lakhota]

We NEED Guns to STOP gun violence? So sez the NRA, So conversely, if we didn't have gun violence, we wound't need guns? Talk about a cyclical argument. I want to just repeal the second amendment. No more mass shootings, no more bullets in my house. No more dead school kids, it a win-win situation all around.

Amen! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control.

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

Reformers love what Massachusetts is doing. The NRA? Not so much.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Amen! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control.

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

Reformers love what Massachusetts is doing. The NRA? Not so much.

Dreaming of repealing the 2nd huh? You're drooling...get a napkin.

Nothing in this post proves this man was a threat to anyone. That's the liberal way.....assume the innocent are all gulty until proven innocent.
What's next? State approval to buy a car? State approval to cross state borders? State decides your income?
They have ultimate gun control in China...and all of the above.

Congratulations! You prefer an Authoritarian. Communist state.

So tell us.....
What does Mass-of-stupids plan to do when a thirty something intends to take a truck and run over a large crowd?

Thankfully the Supreme Court and Federal courts are being restored to American occupation and places like Mass-of-stupids will soon be rid of these Communists.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

When America purges it's courts, schools, media and political system of all these anti-American, Constitution killing Communists, we're not going to soon forget how we almost lost America to them. We won't forget the propaganda, the lies, the corruption.

We won't make these mistakes again.

 

[Slade3200]

Most are already in there place, like the regulations on Autos and the fact you can’t just legally buy them on the street or at the local sporting goods store. I believe we are safer because of that. Same goes for the others. Regulations either make the weapons safer or less accessible to those who shouldn’t own them. It’s not a hard concept to understand. I believe we have had this discussion before

Vehicle ownership is a privilege, not an right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves…
You need to be better educated…

You are such a predictable parrot. My statement had nothing to do with our rights to do anything. We were talking about whether laws and regulations were effective in reducing casualties. How about you stop with the mindless talking points and try listening for a change.

Frivolous gun control laws have never saved a single soul…

How about the non frivolous gun control laws? Which ones are you cool with?

Here is the best of the best gun control laws.... if you are caught using a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery or murder, you know, actual crimes..... you go to prison for 30 years.

If you are a prohibited person caught with an illegal gun, you go to prison for 30 years.

Those two actions will reduce our gun crime even lower than it is already being lowered by law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Then, we end democrat gun free zones...and allow those who are able to carry guns legally to carry their legal guns wherever they go.....that will end mass public shootings...for the most part...we know this from the actual statements of mass shooters and from their note

Those few items are all we need..... we don't need anything else.

You do realize that there are a lot of people that don’t feel safe around guns. They don’t want open carry everywhere they go because when they see guns they feel nervous. There are business owners who don’t want patrons carrying a gun when they get drunk and fight over the blond sitting at their bar. These Americans all have the right to feel that way, do they not? And as Americans doesn’t the business owner have a right to say no guns allowed in my bar? And doesn’t a community have the right to vote for heavy restrictions so not just anybody can walk around their parks and streets and schools carrying a gun? Do you respect any of that?

 

[candycorn]

Wrong.....they all now have increasing violent crime including gun crime, their welfare states have destroyed their families and they are importing violent immigrants who now control the drug trade in those countries....

Yeah, guy... those countries have nowhere near the crime rates we have... i know i hate keep having to break that to you.

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats

The UK crimes per 1000 people 109.6
The US crimes per 1000 people 41.29

The UK has MORE crime per capita than does the US

From Your source:

 

[candycorn]

No argument is needed. They will NEVER get a 2/3rds majority in congress and the states to repeal it. Never.
They may tinker around the edges but the 2nd is not in danger. Too much focus on the big picture while the left whittles away on the fringes.

FOCUS

Did you ever think we would ever debate mens and womens bathrooms?

Boy Scouts was offensive to these pigs
The word waitress in an add is so offensive that it is worthy of 6 figure fines.
Cannot say stewardess, without being stoned to death by the blithering hypocrites.


Do not underestimate how powerful hype which leads to group think is. Our traditions are being ripped down and being replaced slowley but surely by marxist ideology.

We have two operatives hiding under your bed, just waiting for you to fall asleep.

You're giving away our deep state tactics...

 

[Vandalshandle]

No argument is needed. They will NEVER get a 2/3rds majority in congress and the states to repeal it. Never.
They may tinker around the edges but the 2nd is not in danger. Too much focus on the big picture while the left whittles away on the fringes.

FOCUS

Did you ever think we would ever debate mens and womens bathrooms?

Boy Scouts was offensive to these pigs
The word waitress in an add is so offensive that it is worthy of 6 figure fines.
Cannot say stewardess, without being stoned to death by the blithering hypocrites.


Do not underestimate how powerful hype which leads to group think is. Our traditions are being ripped down and being replaced slowley but surely by marxist ideology.

We have two operatives hiding under your bed, just waiting for you to fall asleep.

You're giving away our deep state tactics...

I sure hope that they don't find out about the black helicopters and Walmart tunnels!

 

[Skull Pilot]

NO one is looking to repeal the 2nd. Typical red herring tactic .[/QUOTE

Wrong.....they all now have increasing violent crime including gun crime, their welfare states have destroyed their families and they are importing violent immigrants who now control the drug trade in those countries....

Yeah, guy... those countries have nowhere near the crime rates we have... i know i hate keep having to break that to you.

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats

The UK crimes per 1000 people 109.6
The US crimes per 1000 people 41.29

The UK has MORE crime per capita than does the US

From Your source:

View attachment 192256

So what?

The fact is the UK has more crime per capita not less as had been stated

 

[SmokeALib]

Do not worry though folks. The liars that lie about everything claim they do not want to ban all guns.

Like I said, the liars who lie about everything and defend their lying socialist scum sucking pig democrats claim they do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Just repeal the 1st amendment. That would make those "repeal the 2nd amendment" signs illegal. Surely they wouldn't be displayed then, right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We NEED Guns to STOP gun violence? So sez the NRA, So conversely, if we didn't have gun violence, we wound't need guns? Talk about a cyclical argument. I want to just repeal the second amendment. No more mass shootings, no more bullets in my house. No more dead school kids, it a win-win situation all around.

Amen! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control.

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

Reformers love what Massachusetts is doing. The NRA? Not so much.

Cool let's make every right enumerated in the Constitution subject to the same regulations

 

[Pop23]

None of the thing slade wants does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters...not a single thing. What it does do is make it incrementally more difficult, and incrementally more legally perilous for law abiding people to own and carry guns, as not doing the things he wants will incur stiff penalties on the law abiding, while criminals do whatever they want.

And nothing he suggested will work, or is needed...we have all the laws we need right now, the problem is that the democrat party keeps letting violent gun criminals out of jail........fix that, and our already declining gun violence will go even lower...

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.

Do you believe that the regulations we have on automobiles have made the roads safer and decreased car deaths? Things like drivers licenses, airbags, seat belts and speed limits?

Using your logic, then not nearly enough car regulations are in place.

I pointed out earlier how your proposed solutions would save no lifes, or actually increase deaths. I also posted earlier that, if the goal is to eliminate as many deaths as possible, a "common sense car regulation" would be to simply eliminate any car capable of exceeding 45 mph.

My regulation still allows you to own and drive a car, just limit it's "potential" killing power.

Of course my "common sense car regulation" has proven data to back it up.

Don't worry though, no ones advocating taking your car.

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

 

[Pop23]

We NEED Guns to STOP gun violence? So sez the NRA, So conversely, if we didn't have gun violence, we wound't need guns? Talk about a cyclical argument. I want to just repeal the second amendment. No more mass shootings, no more bullets in my house. No more dead school kids, it a win-win situation all around.

Read your first two sentences. As a whole they make no sense, so the rest is based on senselessness.

Rape is an act of violence, mostly predicated on the larger and stronger having a substantial advantage over the smaller and weaker. The equalizer is often an inanimate object that creates a threat to the existence of that substantial advantage.

The rapists of the world are glad you don't understand this and appreciate your concern for their safety, but the victims of the act likely think you an absurd head case. As do I.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you believe that the regulations we have on automobiles have made the roads safer and decreased car deaths? Things like drivers licenses, airbags, seat belts and speed limits?

Using your logic, then not nearly enough car regulations are in place.

I pointed out earlier how your proposed solutions would save no lifes, or actually increase deaths. I also posted earlier that, if the goal is to eliminate as many deaths as possible, a "common sense car regulation" would be to simply eliminate any car capable of exceeding 45 mph.

My regulation still allows you to own and drive a car, just limit it's "potential" killing power.

Of course my "common sense car regulation" has proven data to back it up.

Don't worry though, no ones advocating taking your car.

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do not worry though folks. The liars that lie about everything claim they do not want to ban all guns.

Like I said, the liars who lie about everything and defend their lying socialist scum sucking pig democrats claim they do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Societal Decay.

A breakdown in the societal truce.

 

[Pop23]

Using your logic, then not nearly enough car regulations are in place.

I pointed out earlier how your proposed solutions would save no lifes, or actually increase deaths. I also posted earlier that, if the goal is to eliminate as many deaths as possible, a "common sense car regulation" would be to simply eliminate any car capable of exceeding 45 mph.

My regulation still allows you to own and drive a car, just limit it's "potential" killing power.

Of course my "common sense car regulation" has proven data to back it up.

Don't worry though, no ones advocating taking your car.

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

 

[jc456]

Uhh, sure some want to ban guns and some want to repeal the 2nd, also some want to keep the 2nd Amendment and institute smart regulations. Can you admit that those all exist on the Left?

What is your stance, and what would your stance accomplish?

I own guns and am supportive of law abiding citizens rights to own firearms. I’m fine with placing strong regulations on weapons or accessories that make guns more capable of mass casualties, like autos, bump stocks, and LCMs. I’m also fine with a registration, quick universal background check process, beefing up a restriction database and a waiting period to reduce impulse buys

And this accomplished what?

None of the thing slade wants does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters...not a single thing. What it does do is make it incrementally more difficult, and incrementally more legally perilous for law abiding people to own and carry guns, as not doing the things he wants will incur stiff penalties on the law abiding, while criminals do whatever they want.

And nothing he suggested will work, or is needed...we have all the laws we need right now, the problem is that the democrat party keeps letting violent gun criminals out of jail........fix that, and our already declining gun violence will go even lower...

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.

Exactly. The problem is, and always will be, that these regulation could, and there is enough evidence to speculate that it would, increase the overall death rate.

1. Gang members would not abide by them and it would likely embolden them. Gang members and drug dealers make up a majority of all homicides from gun deaths that are not suicide. None of the regulations that Slade brings forward would effect those numbers at all.

NET GAIN: ZERO

2. The second leading cause of death by gun is suicide. There is no evidence that someone contemplating suicide would think twice about additional regulations. And even if these additional regulations stopped then from acquiring a gun, that the net affect would be an overall saving of life. Additionally, I've yet to find any evidence that a bump stock was ever used in a suicide, nor that the number of rounds that a gun would hold, over 1, had any role in a suicide.

The fact is, that, Slade's "common sense gun regulations" might even increase the deaths caused by suicide.

I previously posted three links to news articles that provided some evidence of this. In one case, a young man without access to a gun, jumped off of a bridge, taking both his life as well as the life of the woman driving a car that he jumped onto. The second case was a man, without access to a gun, who decided his method of suicide would be to drive down the freeway in the wrong direction which resulted in not only him being killed, but taking the life of a 26 year old man in another car. The third was of a Woman, lacking a gun, deciding, again to drive the wrong way on a freeway. She lived somehow, but took the live's of Seven. Suicidal individuals are incredible creative people. Take one method away, there are dozens of others available to them, but sadly, many of those methods also include the real possibility that other life will end with theirs.

All tolled, instead of 3 live's lost, you had 11.

NET GAIN: ZERO to at least a loss of an additional 11 life's lost

3. Accidental gun related deaths: None of what Slade puts forth would effect this number, at least there isn't any data to suggest it would. I can't find any articles showing a bump stock or attachment as the cause of an accidental discharge causing a loss of life. Most of these have been by careless use, alcohol or drug use with few exception. As for training. I read an article just this morning detailing 3 accidental discharges by highly trained professionals.

The odds of being the victim of an accidental discharge is roughly 1.55 in 327,000,000 on any given day. If you put that into perspective, the odds of dying in a texting related car crash is 16 in 327,000,000 on any given day.

NET GAIN: ZERO

4. Mass killings: And lets call them what they actually are. Not all mass killing involve a gun, several have had no gun involvement, a combination of differing types of guns or a differing number of types of weapons used.

The only time Slade's recommendations might have made a difference was the Las Vegas killings where the killer employed a bump stock. What is the evidence that a man, with substantial wealth, would be deterred by these regulations? To create something that works like a bump stock can be as simple as buying a piece of string. And a man of his wealth could also purchase a bump stock illegally, or have someone simply 3D print one for him. Waiting period? Background Check?. They mean nothing to someone of wealth. But maybe more important, someone of that wealth could easily, purchase a truck and, unable to buy a gun, use the truck to mow down a crowd waiting outside of several hundred venues. The result, as we've seen before, could have been much higher than what he was able to accomplish.

This also deflects from a very real problem. Most of these mass killings have been accomplished by individuals that were on prescription SSRI antidepressants, or a combination of SSRI and other psych drugs. To say that this is a mental illness problem is simply being naive. Of all treatments for depression, it is only SSRI type antidepressant drugs that are related to Violent outburst and mass killings. SSRI treated patients are 50% more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than those, with the same mental illness, but treated in a different manner, or accept no treatment at all.

NET GAIN? ZERO

Offering solutions that accomplish nothing but might make the number of deaths increase is not a solution, it's a play for votes, and there is nothing more vile than that.

well they can come back to the populace, once they have a handle on the guns used by gangs. Let's solve that riddle ahead of endangering the populace.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

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.

 

[Pop23]

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

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.