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.
because the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?
Nope...that is not the same thing......you need a permit to march because you want to use a communal, public space....and that means you have to save a time and date, where others may be trying to do the same thing, and since it is a public space you need to have the government secure the space.....
Carrying a gun requires none of that...nice try though...
I agree. A permit to march is like renting a place for a wedding reception. You don't want two people/groups renting the space at the same time.
You are dodging the Vegas situation again... Can you acknowledge that gun control likely saved trumps life in that instance?ALL criminals are? You sure about that? What happened to the kid in Vegas at the trump rally.? Noticed you skipped over that postSOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?Come on man, use common sense... Make guns super easy to get and put a gun into the hands of the killers who used the knives, clubs, or bare hands... Take away all gun control and give them machine guns... Fatalities go up
Except...that isn't what has actually happened.......you can buy an AR-15 for as little as 500 dollars......and yet they are rarely used for any crime even mass shootings.....
Knives kill more people every single year than all rifles combined.......that is a fact.
The criminals are already getting their guns........they get them in every single country no matter how strict the gun control laws are.....
and none of the gun laws you support is stopping them.
all the criminals who want guns are getting guns....even in France, Britain and Australia, as well as Japan........
except when the knife guy selects children or old people.........right? Ask China and the Japanese about that.....or the French about their Trucks...and even that guy had a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal in France......
France has everything you want....
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems
But in recent years a black market has proliferated. The number of illegal weapons has risen at a rapid rate – double-digit percentages – for several years, according to the National Observatory for Delinquency, a body created in 2003.
“In Marseille and the surrounding area almost all the score settling is carried out using weapons used in wars,” a police spokesman told Reuters after the Toulouse attacks, adding that Kalashnikovs were the weapon of choice: “If you don’t have a ‘Kalash’ you’re a bit of a loser.”
============================
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems
The arsenal of weapons deployed by the eight attackers who terrorised Paris on Friday night underlined France’s gun control problems and raised the spectre of further attacks.
The country has extremely strict weapons laws, but Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black market.
-------------=================
France’s real gun problem
Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns. The guns used in high-profile terror attacks are really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities. Of those guns, around 4,000 were likely to be "war weapons," Le Figaro reported, referring to items such as the Kalashnikov AK-variant rifles and Uzis. Statistics from the National Observatory for Delinquency, a government body created in 2003, suggest that the number of guns in France has grown by double digits every year.
----------------------
How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns
France became particularly worried about the trafficking of illegal guns in 2012, increasing fines and jail terms for those involved in the trafficking and possession of them. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in Septemberthat police have seized nearly 6,000 weapons from criminal groups each year since 2013, 1,200 of which were military assault weapons. And in the three weeks following the Nov. 13 attacks, Cazeneuve said French police seized 334 weapons, 34 of them military-grade.
Several officials and experts tell TIME they’ve seen a noticeable climb in both the numbers and the types of illicit weapons crossing borders over the past few years. Rather than pistols and small guns, there has been a spike in demand for military-grade assault weapons. This reflects a very different kind of criminality: petty criminals and drug dealers tend to want small pistols that they can conceal; terrorists want AK-47s that can do maximum damage.
“For something like the Paris attacks, you don’t need hundreds of thousands of weapons. You just need enough to create havoc,” says Zverzhanovski. “The gun market operates on a very basic supply and demand system. Since about 2011, there has definitely been a significant increase of illicit weapons going from southeast Europe towards different parts of the E.U.” Crucially, it’s not truckloads or planeloads of weapons coming in. It’s much more a case of “micro-trafficking”—a few pieces being brought in by individuals—making it much more difficult to track.
because the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?
So...would you be fine with mandatory classes before you are allowed to post on the internet.....and getting a special license to post on the internet....after you show that you know all the slander and libel laws....how about a fee to post on the internet...and if you post without the fee, or the class...you will be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed.....
What about a background check before you buy an electronic devise....sex trafficking and child porn destroy lives.....if a convicted sex offender or criminal tries to buy a computer to engage in those activities...shouldn't Best Buy and Frye's be required to check your legal status before they sell you a computer, an Ipad or any other electric means of crime?
Funny, then how most of the limitations you'd place on the right to arms, you'd vehemently oppose when placed on another right.there are no rights which are not subject to reasonable limitation.
You really don't get the difference or are you messing with me? A gun is a much more lethal and destructive tool than words... Do you also oppose airport security? There is a public safety concern that is being addressed.Again you dodge my comments/questions about first amendment... Want to try again?
Slander and Libel laws are not proactive.....you break the law, you get punished...you want proactive laws against gun crimes.......and all that does is effect people who do not use guns for crimes......
We can already arrest people who use guns to commit crimes, just like we can arrest people who yell fire in a theater or slander or libel someone.........
A Right is a Right......and guns in the hands of a law abiding people are not a problem...and nothing you want to do will keep the criminals from getting them.....you can't explain it, otherwise you would have.......
there are no rights which are not subject to reasonable limitation.
but thanks for playing.
There in lies the problem. Those saying "reasonable limitation" are the ones that want to make that determination for others then expect others to simply accept what they say.
You can't measure people who didn't commit gun crimes because they couldn't get a gun. Stats are useless for this argumentI already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but someTwo problem with universal background checks:The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.
what a bunch of BS.
You gun hater
If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measuresMaking somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point
The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?
I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.
It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.
You aren't preventing even some........the people who committed 8,124 gun murders in the U.S. in 2014......90% of them were criminals who could not legally own guns.............or carry guns.......so tell us how many crimnals were stopped from getting guns.....
Almost all mass shooters passed at least one background check, the Orlando Shooter passed 3, and the Santa Barbara shooter passed 2....the San Bernadino shooters passed several too...as did the guy who bought them their rifles........
If you;d stick to the limits placed on the rights protected by those amendment, few would question your ideas on gun control.no. it isn't. you should probably look at limitations on the 1st and 4th and 5th amendments.
You really don't get the difference or are you messing with me? A gun is a much more lethal and destructive tool than words... Do you also oppose airport security? There is a public safety concern that is being addressed.Slander and Libel laws are not proactive.....you break the law, you get punished...you want proactive laws against gun crimes.......and all that does is effect people who do not use guns for crimes......
We can already arrest people who use guns to commit crimes, just like we can arrest people who yell fire in a theater or slander or libel someone.........
A Right is a Right......and guns in the hands of a law abiding people are not a problem...and nothing you want to do will keep the criminals from getting them.....you can't explain it, otherwise you would have.......
there are no rights which are not subject to reasonable limitation.
but thanks for playing.
There in lies the problem. Those saying "reasonable limitation" are the ones that want to make that determination for others then expect others to simply accept what they say.
no. reasonable means reasonable. again, your hysteria is not an argument for intentional neglect of a problem.
There is no reason attached to the restrictions you seek on the right to arms as all of your arguments for those restrictions are based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.no. reasonable means reasonable. again, your hysteria is not an argument for intentional neglect of a problem.
The analogy when to the rationale of having a regulatiry system to promote the safety of our citizens.There is no objection to arresting people who break gun laws and people who shoot and kill people. There are many people who want to do more and work towards prevention.I actually agree with you on the bg checks, I don't think they serve a significantly impactful purpose and there are better approaches to take. If We are being really honest, registration would be the safest and most effective answer but I know there is no way those fighting the Strawman would ever let that fly
Not everybody is connected with illegal arms dealers..
Excellent point......and those who are, when we find them we can arrest them...we do not need universal background checks to do this...we can already do this and I have linked in other threads about gun runners captured, not with background checks or gun laws...but with snitches....the way all other crimes are stopped.
If you want to stop illegal gun buying...send in undercover police officers....put in sting operations on internet sales....make clear the buyers and sellers cannot pass background checks or are felons....and if the seller or buyer goes forward..arrest them.....
That is how it would be handled if the issue was stopping criminals.....the issue for anti gun activists is getting rid of guns.....that is why they focus on normal gun owners and not criminals.
Okay....you just mentioned Registration...please explain how they work, how they will stop criminals and mass shooters ...
And do you realize that actual criminals, are not required to register illegal guns? Because of Haynes v. United States....so the only people who will be forced to register their guns....are people who don't commit crimes with them.....
What is so hard about simply arresting people who break the law with guns.......why is that such a hard concept for you guys.....?
You keep wanting to be Tom Cruise in Minority Report and swing down on a Zip line and arrest people before they commit crime...it didn't work in the movie, it won't work in reality.
Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.
And guess what... There are less car accidents because we don't let 5 year olds or blind people drive on the freeway. Same concept with gun control
Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.
Every one of those things can already be done...and in fact is already being done....they arrest the criminal using the gun, they get him to roll over on the supplier, and then if the guy is an actual criminal, they arrest them too....
Keep in mind.....they have registration in all of the countries I have mentioned...and it doesn't stop their criminals....
Do you acknowledge that actual criminals will not have to register their illegal guns? So if you catch a criminal with an unregistered gun, you can't punish him for that crime..right? You can only punish law abiding gun owners who don't register their gun....
And gun registration in Canada.....had been stopped, why....it cost too much money, time and manpower and did nothing to solve crimes.....
More kids are killed in car accidents than are killed with guns.........we don't let 5 year olds buy, own or carry guns......how does that have anything to do with registering a gun....?
I don't want to get into a gun registration debate as it isn't something I would support. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level. It doesn't on a fiscal and operational level.
I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law. Can you acknowledge that the law prevents SOME criminals (wreckless individuals would would likely inflict harm) from getting a gun?
You can't measure people who didn't commit gun crimes because they couldn't get a gun. Stats are useless for this argumentI already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but someTwo problem with universal background checks:
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.
what a bunch of BS.
You gun hater
If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measuresThe problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?
I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.
It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.
You aren't preventing even some........the people who committed 8,124 gun murders in the U.S. in 2014......90% of them were criminals who could not legally own guns.............or carry guns.......so tell us how many crimnals were stopped from getting guns.....
Almost all mass shooters passed at least one background check, the Orlando Shooter passed 3, and the Santa Barbara shooter passed 2....the San Bernadino shooters passed several too...as did the guy who bought them their rifles........
Dude, I'm not claiming that the regulations are the same, I'm claiming there are regulations and controls on other rights and I don't hear you faithful constitutionist complaining about those. You act like the 2nd amendment is the only one being regulated. It's BSbecause the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?
Nope...that is not the same thing......you need a permit to march because you want to use a communal, public space....and that means you have to save a time and date, where others may be trying to do the same thing, and since it is a public space you need to have the government secure the space.....
Carrying a gun requires none of that...nice try though...
There is no reason attached to the restrictions you seek on the right to arms as all of your arguments for those restrictions are based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.no. reasonable means reasonable. again, your hysteria is not an argument for intentional neglect of a problem.
1 lifeI already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but someTwo problem with universal background checks:The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.
what a bunch of BS.
You gun hater
If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measuresMaking somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point
The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?
I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.
It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.
Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.
In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.
You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?
Dude, I'm not claiming that the regulations are the same, I'm claiming there are regulations and controls on other rights and I don't hear you faithful constitutionist complaining about those. You act like the 2nd amendment is the only one being regulated. It's BSbecause the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?
Nope...that is not the same thing......you need a permit to march because you want to use a communal, public space....and that means you have to save a time and date, where others may be trying to do the same thing, and since it is a public space you need to have the government secure the space.....
Carrying a gun requires none of that...nice try though...
because the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?
Nope...that is not the same thing......you need a permit to march because you want to use a communal, public space....and that means you have to save a time and date, where others may be trying to do the same thing, and since it is a public space you need to have the government secure the space.....
Carrying a gun requires none of that...nice try though...
I agree. A permit to march is like renting a place for a wedding reception. You don't want two people/groups renting the space at the same time.
no. it isn't. you should probably look at limitations on the 1st and 4th and 5th amendments. the problem is hysterical rightwing shills for the NRA start stamping their feet.
and by your logic (or lack thereof), we shouldn't outlaw murder either because well, it won't deter murderers.
1 lifeI already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but someTwo problem with universal background checks:
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.
what a bunch of BS.
You gun hater
If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measuresThe problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?
I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.
It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.
Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.
In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.
You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?
Two problem with universal background checks:The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.
what a bunch of BS.
You gun hater
If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measuresMaking somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the pointThe laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.
The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?
I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.
It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.
you rightwingnuts propose nothing.
but keep lying. it's all good.
1 lifeI already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but someTwo problem with universal background checks:
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.
what a bunch of BS.
You gun hater
If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measuresThe problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.
What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?
I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.
It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.
Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.
In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.
You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?
Again I'm saying the regulations are the same. Sticks and stones man... Guns kill people, they are dangerous. So do cars and we have classes and licenses and registration and safety standards to drive. It makes sensebecause the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?
So...would you be fine with mandatory classes before you are allowed to post on the internet.....and getting a special license to post on the internet....after you show that you know all the slander and libel laws....how about a fee to post on the internet...and if you post without the fee, or the class...you will be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed.....
What about a background check before you buy an electronic devise....sex trafficking and child porn destroy lives.....if a convicted sex offender or criminal tries to buy a computer to engage in those activities...shouldn't Best Buy and Frye's be required to check your legal status before they sell you a computer, an Ipad or any other electric means of crime?
