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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Of course they are. The gun control argument is not based on factual data because studies do not show correlation with gun control and decreased crime. What is left is an appeal to emotion. Mass shooting are very VERY emotional so they are used to push the agenda. You cant really blame them, something like sandyhook is horrific and no one wants that to be repeated ever again. The sad truth is that you cant stop all crazy though.Such as?
And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.
Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?
I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.
it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....
Really?
Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. If there has been no increase, then what you are saying is that it has been horrendous all along, we just didn't realize it. You can't have it both ways.
USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS
The deaths from mass shootings at the hands of some lunatic, account for less than 1% of the gun murder deaths in the US. Yet they seem to be the main focus of the anti-gun crowd.
So you agree with the thrust of my argument then?And there is where the entire gun control debate falls apart for gun control. You have no basis to restrict the right.Gun Facts Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries
Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). 17
And Denmark has much lower crime rates and very few guns. Guns really don't effect crime rates.
Yes I'm not aware of any strong evidence showing crime is effected either up or down by gun ownership.
Gun control (beyond what we have) should not be passed? I thought you were on the other side of this debate...
There are thngs I would like done, but I mostly just try to keep the debate honest. The main thing I am for is mag capacity limits. I've not yet heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, but gang bangers and mass shooters use them a lot. And there are examples of mass shooters stopped at reload.
>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<so far everyone is....,
Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control
why don't everyone define what you consider "reasonable"..., then we can restart the debate, it's NOT about "gun control" in it's self, it's all about "reasonable"
OK ?
When it comes to most liberals, there is no such thing as reasonable. Because liberals make decisions on emotion. And most do not even know what they are talking about in regards to firearms. They want to ban the scary black rifles, and call them assault rifles. They are simply semi automatic rifles.
I could easily convert an AR-15 to have a 5 round fixed box instead of a magazine. And than I could place that and a Ruger mini 14 on a table and ask them which should be banned. We know what they would choose, but I could pop a large magazine on the mini 14. But the AR-15 is black and scary, so that is the bad man. The only real difference between the two is the looks. The same comparison could be performed for the Ruger mini 30 and an AK-47.
I simply can't trust people who are not at least someone educated on the subject. Minds get made up based only on what they hear. I didn't say all liberals, and for the most part true liberal democrats are patriotic and do own guns. The liberal progressives are the fucking scourge that want to fuck over everyone, and gun grab.
... 
There are thngs I would like done, but I mostly just try to keep the debate honest. The main thing I am for is mag capacity limits. I've not yet heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, but gang bangers and mass shooters use them a lot. And there are examples of mass shooters stopped at reload.
The underlined is exactly why I need to keep my high capacity magazines.
>>>>>>><<<<<<The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
the guns don't take people's lives. Its the criminals that use them.
yeah, yeah, blah blah. I've heard it before.
you've heard it before because its true.
That makes no sense.
... ... ... .
There is nothing reasonable about gun control. The title was poorly worded. imo.
[
There are thngs I would like done, but I mostly just try to keep the debate honest. The main thing I am for is mag capacity limits. I've not yet heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, but gang bangers and mass shooters use them a lot. And there are examples of mass shooters stopped at reload.
[
There are thngs I would like done, but I mostly just try to keep the debate honest. The main thing I am for is mag capacity limits. I've not yet heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, but gang bangers and mass shooters use them a lot. And there are examples of mass shooters stopped at reload.
The Second Amendment is not qualified on an individual needs basis. The "need" is universal to protect the free state.
I am quite capable of determining the size of magazine I want for my firearms and the government needs to stay out of the business of telling me what to do.
If the police "needs" standard capacity magazines then so do I because we both are faced with the same threat from the same bad guys. I am my own first responder.
Just mind your own business and don't worry about the size of my magazines. I am a law abiding citizen and I am responsible and I don't need you taking away my rights with your ignorance.
How many times have you needed one?
Police apprehend criminals, very different from defendng.
Mass shooters and gang bangers pick their magazines and use the full capacity all the time. I've not heard of a defender needing to do that.
How many times have you needed one?
Police apprehend criminals, very different from defendng.
Mass shooters and gang bangers pick their magazines and use the full capacity all the time. I've not heard of a defender needing to do that.
The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.
Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.
By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.
Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.
Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.
Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.
Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.
Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?
The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......
I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....
Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....
The annual casualty rate from guns in this country from all incidents, not just protection, does not support your claim. Neither does the annual gun-related death toll in our inner cities. I know this is make up shit Thursday, but perhaps you ought to consider rephrasing your bullshit comment.
The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......
I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....
Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....
Except the 1.6 million is made up. And Kleck admits that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior.
No he didn't....quit lying Brain....
Only one lying is you Bill
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
How many times have you needed one?
Police apprehend criminals, very different from defendng.
Mass shooters and gang bangers pick their magazines and use the full capacity all the time. I've not heard of a defender needing to do that.
The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.
Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.
By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.
Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.
Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.
Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.
Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.
How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.
Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?
I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.
Such as?
In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.
And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.
Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?
I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.
it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....
Really?
Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. If there has been no increase, then what you are saying is that it has been horrendous all along, we just didn't realize it. You can't have it both ways.
USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS
I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.
Such as?
In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.
And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.
Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?
I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.
it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....
Really?
Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. If there has been no increase, then what you are saying is that it has been horrendous all along, we just didn't realize it. You can't have it both ways.
USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS
It’s disheartening to see the FBI used to promote a political agenda, but that’s what we got with the bureau’s release last month of a study claiming to show a sharp rise in mass shootings, a la Newtown, Conn.
The FBI counted 160 “mass” or “active” shootings in public places from 2000 to 2013. Worse, it said these attacks rose from just one in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Media outlets worldwide gave the “news” extensive coverage.
Too bad the study is remarkably shoddy — slicing the evidence to distort the results. In fact, mass public shootings have only risen ever so slightly over the last four decades.
While the FBI study discusses “mass shootings or killings,” its graphs were filled with cases that had nothing to do with mass killings. Of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder.
Three-quarters of the missing cases came in the first half of the study’s time period, thus again biasing the results toward finding a larger increase over time.
It’s hard to see how the FBI can count these incidents, which make up 42 percent of its 160 cases, as “mass killings.” They plainly don’t fit the FBI’s old definition, which required four or more murders, nor even its new one of at least three murders.
And these non-mass shootings, with zero or one person killed, drive much of the purported increase in the number of attacks. If you consider cases where no one or only one person was killed, 50 came in the last seven years of the period the FBI examined and only 17 during the first seven years.
For example, in 2010, the FBI reports that there were 29 of these active shooter cases, but just nine involved more than a single fatality.
The FBI study also ignored 20 out of what should have been a total of 113 cases where at least two people were killed.
Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?
I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.
it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....
Really?
Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. If there has been no increase, then what you are saying is that it has been horrendous all along, we just didn't realize it. You can't have it both ways.
USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS
How many took place in locations where gun free zones prohibited someone from even having a gun there?
If you are suggesting that 'if only someone at the time had a gun to take the culprits out', I suggest to you that that is a fallacy, that the most likely outcome in that situation is that you have even more dead people to bury. This wild west, Wyatt Urp mentality needs to stop.
Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?
I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.
it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....
Really?
Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. If there has been no increase, then what you are saying is that it has been horrendous all along, we just didn't realize it. You can't have it both ways.
USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS
How many took place in locations where gun free zones prohibited someone from even having a gun there?
If you are suggesting that 'if only someone at the time had a gun to take the culprits out', I suggest to you that that is a fallacy, that the most likely outcome in that situation is that you have even more dead people to bury. This wild west, Wyatt Urp mentality needs to stop.
