Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearmsI'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
You are confused.
The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.
They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.
Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.
You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.
What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.
Owning a car does not require a license.Good. Guns should be licensed like autos.
It would likely go DOWN REALLY FAST. The problem Chicago has is a handful of gang bangers getting their hands on guns while law abiding are helpless because Illinois is a gun-grabbing communist shit hole!!!Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
At a very minimum, the Hughes Amendment has (part of the 1986 "protection" act).Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun?
I was just looking for reasons for the irrational hatred of the military.A Soldier once stole your girlfriend, didn't he?How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
We could make huge cuts to the defense budget and do that.
No that I can recall.
Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
You wanna hear something funny?Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearmsI'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
You are confused.
The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.
They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.
Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.
You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.
What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.
Nor does driving one on private property.Owning a car does not require a license.Good. Guns should be licensed like autos.
Ummmm, hatred is itself inherently irrational.I was just looking for reasons for the irrational hatred of the military.A Soldier once stole your girlfriend, didn't he?How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
We could make huge cuts to the defense budget and do that.
No that I can recall.
It's more a rational hatred for those over the military.
Ummmm, hatred is itself inherently irrational.I was just looking for reasons for the irrational hatred of the military.A Soldier once stole your girlfriend, didn't he?How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
We could make huge cuts to the defense budget and do that.
No that I can recall.
It's more a rational hatred for those over the military.
Is that a theory or has it been proven anywhere?It would likely go DOWN REALLY FAST. The problem Chicago has is a handful of gang bangers getting their hands on guns while law abiding are helpless because Illinois is a gun-grabbing communist shit hole!!!Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
When everybody is armed, every confrontation has the potential to be deadly to anyone involved. People tend to exercise MUCH more caution when they believe they may find themselves in a gun fight with EVERYONE ELSE.
So says everyone who hates.It's unfortunate. There is good cause.
Post #107.Is that a theory or has it been proven anywhere?It would likely go DOWN REALLY FAST. The problem Chicago has is a handful of gang bangers getting their hands on guns while law abiding are helpless because Illinois is a gun-grabbing communist shit hole!!!Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
When everybody is armed, every confrontation has the potential to be deadly to anyone involved. People tend to exercise MUCH more caution when they believe they may find themselves in a gun fight with EVERYONE ELSE.
how so?At a very minimum, the Hughes Amendment has (part of the 1986 "protection" act).Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun?
You wanna hear something funny?Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearmsI'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
You are confused.
The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.
They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.
Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.
You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.
What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.
I don't own any firearms.
But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".
No, really. Have you read it?
Please respond to this post.Tell me what a machine gun is.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
Exactly. Seems some people can't understand that.You wanna hear something funny?Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearmsI'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?
You are confused.
The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.
They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.
Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.
You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.
What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.
I don't own any firearms.
But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".
No, really. Have you read it?
Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.
Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?
Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.
They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.
The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.
12020 Democratic Party Platform
Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
