CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[2aguy]

Our murder rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1950 despite having more guns in private hands

I'd say the US gun market is saturated with many (most?) owners having more than one gun. The percent of U.S. adults either own a firearm personally, or live with someone who does is down 17 points from the highest recorded rate in 1994, and down nearly 10 percentage points from 2012.

If you believe the wildly-fluctuating survey results, sure.
What's your point?

You said

Our murder rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1950 despite having more guns in private hands

While its true we have more guns we have fewer "hands". So you can look at the numbers as fewer hands with guns result in fewer murders.

Another trend is that American gun ownership dropped to the lowest in nearly 40 years as the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. Cause and effect? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

But, you're happy to allow the implication lie there. Honest of you.

I was honest that I don't know for sure. Were you any more honest when you equated the murder rate with the number of guns in private hands.

On that we can agree but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and give up. We should look at each factor and try to mitigate its effects. That would include guns.

Propose a gun control law that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding and I will stand behind you.

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training? I usually hear that such things are opposed by the gun lobby, not because they infringe upon the rights of the law abiding but because they are the first step on the slippery slope to gun confiscation.[/QUOTE]


They are steps toward confiscaton and banning....but added to that...they do nothing to stop crime or mass shootings......

Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?

Background checks...do not stop criminals or mass shooters.....I am fine with current background checks but not for private sales...that requires gun registration which will be used for bans and confiscation....

And gun registration is pointless and does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters.

 

[alang1216]

Actually, that isn't true.....the survey the anti gunners use to show gun ownership down is the General Social Survey....it is run by an anti gunner who wants to use his research to encourage politicians to enact more gun control.....

With millions of guns being sold, and record sales months more people are just not answering the questions of unknown pollsters on wether they have a gun in the home......

Shooting the messenger?

Different national polls tend to show slightly different rates of gun ownership. The latest household gun ownership rate in the General Social Survey, in 2014, was 32 percent. The October 2015 Gallup survey showed a higher rate of 43 percent, including guns kept on property outside the home.

But the downward trend in gun ownership remains consistent across the national polls. According to Gallup, gun ownership has fallen by about 10 percentage points since its peak in 1993. The General Social Survey shows a 20-point drop since the mid-1970s.

 

[alang1216]

Are you really pushing the lie that the CDC can't do gun research....I have had several threads that have listed actual gun reserach by the CDC......

Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year. The CDC can do gun research, just $2.6 million less than before.

 

[alang1216]

Focus on actual gun criminals instead of taking guns away from normal gun owners.....

Classic straw man argument.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our murder rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1950 despite having more guns in private hands

I'd say the US gun market is saturated with many (most?) owners having more than one gun. The percent of U.S. adults either own a firearm personally, or live with someone who does is down 17 points from the highest recorded rate in 1994, and down nearly 10 percentage points from 2012.

If you believe the wildly-fluctuating survey results, sure.
What's your point?

You said

Our murder rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1950 despite having more guns in private hands

While its true we have more guns we have fewer "hands". So you can look at the numbers as fewer hands with guns result in fewer murders.

Another trend is that American gun ownership dropped to the lowest in nearly 40 years as the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. Cause and effect? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

But, you're happy to allow the implication lie there. Honest of you.

I was honest that I don't know for sure. Were you any more honest when you equated the murder rate with the number of guns in private hands.

On that we can agree but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and give up. We should look at each factor and try to mitigate its effects. That would include guns.

Propose a gun control law that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding and I will stand behind you.

]

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a large population can in fact be a greater number than a larger percentage of a smaller population don't you?

 

[alang1216]

Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge. Police or FBI approved trainers can teach classes at night or on weekends at local high schools. A written or oral exam to pass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You said

Our murder rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1950 despite having more guns in private hands

While true, I did not say this.

But, you're happy to allow the implication lie there. Honest of you.

I was honest that I don't know for sure.

Well then...
The huge decrease in violent crime, gun-related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder coincides with the huge majority of states moving to a shall-issue CCW permit system - some not requiring a permit at all.
Cause and effect? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Propose a gun control law that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding and I will stand behind you.

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?

Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
So... no.
Anything else?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Most" means 50%+1.

It also means 100%-1. What's your point, that almost 1/2 of the people in a democrat voting district in a democrat controlled inner city are adding to the murder rate?

Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.
By necessity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.

Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.

 

[alang1216]

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?

Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
So... no.
Anything else?

Is there anything that won't infringe on the rights of the law abiding? Are we powerless to prevent gun crime since we can only react after the fact?

 

[alang1216]

Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.

Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.

All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?

Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
So... no.
Anything else?

Is there anything that won't infringe on the rights of the law abiding?

Sure - things that do not restrict the exercise of their right.
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun. Not an infringement.
It is illegal for a felon to buy/own/possess a gun. Not an infringement.
Etc.

Are we powerless to prevent gun crime since we can only react after the fact?

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

 

[GaryDog]

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?

Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
So... no.
Anything else?

Is there anything that won't infringe on the rights of the law abiding?

Sure - things that do not restrict the exercise of their right.
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun. Not an infringement.
It is illegal for a felon to buy/own/possess a gun. Not an infringement.
Etc.

Are we powerless to prevent gun crime since we can only react after the fact?

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims. The goal of those in support of gun control is to prevent victims. DUI laws were created to stop injuries and fatalities from accidents involving alcohol. To do that, we criminalized driving drunk, not just crashing. The DUI arrest itself is not the goal. The prevention of harm is the goal.

Similarly, more than just locking someone up after they shoot a room full of people is required to stop people from shooting rooms full of people. You can make laws designed to prevent crime. We do it every day. Only disingenuous gun-rights martyrs think otherwise.

 

[alang1216]

[QUOTE="alang1216, post: 15039815, member: 49658
It also means 100%-1. What's your point, that almost 1/2 of the people in a democrat voting district in a democrat controlled inner city are adding to the murder rate?

Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.
By necessity.[/QUOTE]
You need to check your math. The murder rate in Chicago is about 20 in 100,000. If half the people in Chicago were committing murder the rate would be 50,000.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.

Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.

All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.

Yes... restrictions inherent to the right itself, such as being able to prove who you are when you vote.

But, what if the state were to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to vote?
Report the news?
Go to church?
Have an abortion?

Again:
Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims

Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.

 

[GaryDog]

Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.

Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.

All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.

Yes... restrictions inherent to the right itself, such as being able to prove who you are when you vote.

But, what if the state were to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to vote?
Report the news?
Go to church?
Have an abortion?

Again:
Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.

You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[QUOTE="alang1216, post: 15039815, member: 49658
It also means 100%-1. What's your point, that almost 1/2 of the people in a democrat voting district in a democrat controlled inner city are adding to the murder rate?

Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.
By necessity.

You need to check your math. The murder rate in Chicago is about 20 in 100,000.
[/quote]
As the murder rate in the US is ~4.5/100k and would be lower if not for Chicago, you prove my point.

 

[GaryDog]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims

Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.

Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.

Irrelevant to the conversation.