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

[jc456]

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

None of the things you want will stop criminals or mass shooters.....

Do you understand that there is no research that supports anything you suggested? That what you want you simply want out of emotion, and not from any actual detterrent effect?

Yes, like the global warming scam, they do not want to listen to the actual facts. They cling to the lies and perpetuate the lies.

That explains your really stupid post.

You are a global warming denier & we all know those people are dumber than shit.

So you know how the global climate works? Wow, you’re the only one. You should educate us

Educated an ignorant fool is difficult.

I believe the vast majority of climatologists.

We know this:

More CO2 in the atmosphere => higher greenhouse gas effects => warmer temperatures

Then how about you see when the hottest years have occurred since the 1880s.

What facts do you have?

there are many in this forum. go to environment and look them up. Search Hottest years, or warmest years. How about the amount of CO2, did you know that it was once in the thousands of ppm? did you? What is it exactly do you know? how warm does it get by adding 20 PPM of CO2? got those numbers? why not, see it's a concern to me if you want money from me. I don't follow a leader off the cliff. ever. I open my eyes and see what's in front of me. I know that my own area isn't tracking to the alarmists doom and gloom scenario, so I have no faith in what they spout out. Folks like you merely parrot them. I take nothing from you as knowledgeable. cause you all can never answer the question on how warm does 20 PPM of CO2 make the globe? In fact, I can't find an answer on the internet thingy called google.

Oh and, what is the ideal temperature of the globe? Who decided that?

 

[jc456]

You people need to calm the fuck down.

Nobody wants your damn guns.

Then why do they carry signs saying so?

A see people carry all kinds of signs at Trump rallies.

The Democrat party nor most of its members are not talking about taking away your precious guns.

then they shouldn't allow those signs at their rallies they organize. It leaves the impression that that indeed is the objective. It's too late, that shipped sailed on you.

 

[jc456]

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?

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

 

[jc456]

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?

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

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

 

[jc456]

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?

then why don't you wish to honor the intent of those signs you want the 1st amendment to allow you to display?

 

[jc456]

The left just are not capable of being HONEST!!!

 

[Pop23]

And this accomplished what?

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

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.

 

[jc456]

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

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.

logic, which the left has none of.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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

We are in agreement with the above. Maybe more importantly, you and I, one on the right, one on the left, have created a basis onto which resolution could come.

If only our politicians could learn from that.

I think we need to be respectful to both.

exactly

 

[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.

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?

some want you to believe those regulations have, but in fact they do make driving any more safe. tell you what, you want to bring this up post up the statistics. it would help your argument dude.

 

[Slade3200]

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

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

 

[jc456]

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.

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

hey slade, just one question, if you wanted to shoot people where would you plan that shooting, at a place with CC or a 'gun free zone'? just asking how honest you really are.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

See my last post about the guy that tried to kill Trump

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

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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

hey slade, just one question, if you wanted to shoot people where would you plan that shooting, at a place with CC or a 'gun free zone'? just asking how honest you really are.

I have no clue how whackos minds work. I’d think that most have targets so it wouldn’t matter if it was gun free or not. Also many go in with the intent to die by either suicide or in a shootout with cops

 

[jc456]

And this accomplished what?

And what accomplished what? You asked what I support, I just told you.

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

See my last post about the guy that tried to kill Trump

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

my point exactly. thanks.

 

[Pop23]

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

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.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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

 

[Slade3200]

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

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

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.