Gun Control question for liberals?

[BULLDOG]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

no they dont,,,

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Opinion pieces are not facts.

but the info they use most of the time is fact,,,and in this case your argument fails,,,

Im afraid that's incorrect. Opinion pieces tend to to cherry pick or outright misrepresent facts, that's why they are published as opinion instead of facts or news. It's not exclusively a republican thing (although they do it more often) democrats have been guilty of it as well.

I know you are just going to attack the messenger again instead of addressing the message, but inside this article it give CDC stats that say at a min 500K lives are saved each yr by guns, and that number could go as high as 3 million,,,

now go ahead and attack the messenger again,,,


WAITING,,,

So, why don't you post up those CDC stats for us instead of bogus opinion pieces?

The CDC? That was proven bullshit "research."

Next.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

 

[BULLDOG]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

You want them. You prove it.

Criminals do not obey laws and do not use weapons that can lead back to them, a.k.a. illegal weapons, that normal people do not buy. It is pointless to talk about this because you people refuse to understand how it works.

Straw purchases lead back to the last FFL purchase.

You just want to add more steps in the process to stop LEGAL purchases. Quit lying.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

So, you are finally agreeing that laws do not prevent crime.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Praise Allah.

.

 

[KGB]

1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.

2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.

Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so fucking rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.

Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.

If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.

Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.

.

Awesome hyperbole.

Making someone get training is nowhere in the same ballpark as forcing them to devote a year of their lives in involuntary servitude that may result in their death in armed conflict, hyperbole or not.

.

A mandatory year of military service would have several beneficial results, one of which would be fire arms training. One other, undoing some of the leftist indoctrination and giving them a crash course on how to be an adult instead of a perpetually offended little hyper sensitive democrat cry baby.

I spent 8 years in the AF and I'm not dead.

Some career fields require up to a year in training (not to mention getting mission qualified at the unit level). It would have to be 2-3 yrs min to make it worthwhile.

 

[Crepitus]

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

Laws against murder and rape do decrease murder and rape because of the large punishment.
But gun laws have LESS punishment than what the criminal intends to violate with the weapon, so can not possibly work at all.
In which case the ONLY possible intent of gun laws is to intimidate honest people.
And yes, making guns more difficult to get legally does greatly increase crime because it makes the illegal market more lucrative and enticing, just as the War on Drug and Prohibition greatly increased crime.
If you look at the graph of murders over the years, it is clear that Prohibition and the War on Drugs more than doubled the murder rates.
More gun laws only make the illegal gun market more lucrative and enticing, while greatly decreasing the credibility or respect for government.
A government that would implement gun control will be actively worked against by any responsible person who believes in a democratic republic. That is because with a democratic republic, gun control by government is essentially treason..

So in your opinion if we want gun control laws to work we need really serious, like death penalty punishment.

Opinion noted.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Interesting that you believe that most liberals don't like private citizens owning guns. I am a liberal, and I own 5 firearms. In fact, all of my friends are liberals and none of them has a problem with private citizens owning guns. Tell us. What is it like living in the world of paranoia?

 

[KGB]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...

None of the other rights can accidentally kill someone if mishandled or be used to kill a room full of Innocents in a matter of minutes. You can babble and whine about rights all day long but you cannot ignore fact that they come with responsibilities.

Of course they come with responsibilities but it’s still a right not a privilege. Voting comes with responsibilities too. So does free speech. Everything comes with a responsibility. But guess what, you are confusing criminal activity with engaging in a constitutional right.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

Unplug the headlamp on one side of your car and drive around at night, that gives LE Probable Cause to stop your car and make sure it is safe. Also, the Coast Guard can arbitrarily board and examine if you vessel has proper safety equipment.

A violation that harms others, like a headlight, is not a safety inspection.
I have never had police or Coast Guard conduct a safety inspection, nor would I see any legal authorization, even though travel is not a right and could endanger others.
Unlike travel, weapons are from the right of defense, and there really can be no equivocation on that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

You don't hear calls for more DUI laws . You don't hear a call for zero tolerance. I've yet to hear a call for more restrictive penalties for people who are caught DUI. Never have I heard a call to restrict a vehicle that has over 400 horse power being banned when the driver was drunk and killed someone. but it's always a gun.

 

[KGB]

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

If they are so benign, then tell me why people have lost their lives defending them or in the case of the founders, fighting for them? I think you need to check down on reality son...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Interesting that you believe that most liberals don't like private citizens owning guns. I am a liberal, and I own 5 firearms. In fact, all of my friends are liberals and none of them has a problem with private citizens owning guns. Tell us. What is it like living in the world of paranoia?

I really don't care how much you leftist deny your position on gun control your actions speak volumes.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

With all purchases is just a warm-up...

Make that "with all transfers of ownership" - commercial or private.

Agree
All transfers of ownership should be recorded

What would the point of that be?
The founder's expectation was that every single home would have defense weapons.
That need will never change.
So then everyone will always have access to firearms, and there should be absolutely no point in tracking who the actual registered owner might be.
That is information government never needs, so should never want.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having the right to go to the church of your choice without a license is the same as having the right to own a gun with a 30 round ammo drum? Creptitus, I think that KGB's train left the station without his baggage.

 

[Rigby5]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

In a democratic republic, police can not have as many guns as they wish.
In a democratic republic, the authority for anyone to have weapons comes from the inherent rights of individuals, and only these inherent rights of individuals are the source of ability for police to have guns.
If you restrict the rights of individuals to have guns, then these individual then no longer would have the authority to allow police, (which they create), to have guns, so then police would have to be disarmed first.

And no, there is no way, means, practical ability, or legal basis for government to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone. If there are dangerous people like criminals, crazies, etc., then you supervise them, not the possible weapons they could employ. They would be just as dangerous with cars, poisons, fertilizers, flammables, etc.

Registration, licensing, background checks, reporting, etc., are all just inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
The founders considered making military grade weapons mandatory, because they are essential to the existence of a democratic republic.
Restrict them and you no longer have a democratic republic, no matter what you claim.
The main threat to any democratic republic always comes from government corruption, not armed private citizens.

Police are there for our protection

They are trained and regulated. I have no issue providing them any weapon they need to keep us safe

Armed citizens cause 32,000 gun deaths a year. We need to be protected from them. They are the threat

First of all, what you like is irrelevant.
The point is that government, police, etc., did not originally exist.
They are not a source of any authority at all.
When we created government, police, etc., we delegated our inherent authority for them to use, for us.
But we can not delegate authority which we do not ourselves already possess.
So if we can not possess guns, then we can not created police and delegate that ability to posses gun.
The police are beneath us in the chain of command, not above us.
So their authority is inferior to our.
The only way police appear superior is that they are delegated from everyone in order to protect all areas, while we only have sovereignty over our own home and life.

But I also strongly argue that police are incredibly BADLY trained, and almost totally unregulated.
And this is extremely important because government corruption is always the single most important threat any democratic republic always faces.
It is easy to prove police are horrifically trained.
First is that they point loaded guns at people without cause, all the time.
And that is a serious felony, conduct regardless of life.
Second is that not only are there constant incidents of police shooting unarmed and innocent civilians, but that they ALWAYS completely empty the magazine.
That is proof of universal training that is completely wrong, dangerous, and illegal.
Police can NEVER have any authority to act in any way that all people do not already have the inherent right to act, because police get their authority only from us, as a delegated pass down.

Armed citizens do NOT cause 32,000 gun deaths a year.
First of all, half those are suicides, and that is a person's natural and normal right.,
Second is that almost all the rest are the direct result of the police illegally causing them through their War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs entices poor people into dealing drugs because the police have made it so profitable.
Then there are turf conflicts and robberies because dealers can't use banks or police for protection.
Look at Prohibition and you see the exact same increase in murders, for exactly the same reason.
The police cause high murder rates when they try to prohibit something people know the police have no authority to prohibit.
So ALL those murders are actually caused by police, not armed citizens.

 

[Crepitus]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

Didja figure that out all on yer own there Gomer?

 

[Crepitus]

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.

I wonder if that would be your response if it we were talking about your son or daughter

Of course it would be.
If I had screwed up as a parent so badly that my children wanted to die, I would be the last person to then force them to not do what they wanted.
Suicide is caused by many long standing failures by family, health care, society, etc.
You can't fix it by passing laws to put more people in jail.
That is even worse, and deserves punishment.

Seek help, it is available.

 

[Crepitus]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.