How many democrats own guns?

[Slade3200]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I asked the question AFTER you said if it saved just one life, it would be successful. I didn't bait a thing. I went on your response, then you were afraid to answer my question.

When you contradict yourself, you lose credibility. I provided the number of 11,208 for 2013 and asked you what you would find acceptable. You said if it save ONE life, it was a success. 11,208 minus 1 = 11,207. Now you say it isn't a success. It would be what you say I'm trying to do if you didn't know the 11,208 number BEFORE making you one less would be successful statement. You try to change what you said now. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You didn't say let's do better. You said one less is a success.

What it amounts to is you ran your mouth without thinking and when you know you were had, you run like a little bitch.

Can you read? I said it was a success if you saved a life, and don't pretend like the whole line of questioning wasn't a bait so you could give that same answer... Your little games don't get either of us anywhere, lets just be straight forward from now on shall we?

Explain how something can be a success if only one life is saved yet 11,207 are still killed.

I was straightforward and provided you with all the information you needed. You gave an answer and now aren't man enough to stand behind it. Coward.

Easy. A life was saved

 

[Slade3200]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

I'm not winning. I've won especially when you said saving one life was a success then said one life wouldn't make it successful.

The you must have a short penis excuse. Ask your wife.

There is a difference between a success and something that is successful you ignorant ass. I start a business and make my first sale, that is a huge success but it doesn't make the business successful. You're done with this argument

 

[2aguy]

So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?

Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin

An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.

The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.

Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........

You are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Background checks at a gun store are accepted.......the problem comes in when the anti gunners...who demanded background checks at guns stores...got them....and then demanded the next step.....universal background checks....which only work with gun registration........that is too far.

And you don't need the black market to get guns from gun stores....just a baby momma with a clean record........and that is the same thing for private sales....

And no.......background checks did not save Trump...regular security saved Trump because any other left wing nut job could walk into a gun store...and this guy could have gotten an illegal gun if he really wanted one......he could have gotten a fully automatic one from Britain and sent it to himself in the U.S.....

 

[boilermaker55]

And this is relevant in what way?

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

 

[2aguy]

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

Have they always had a fraction of the gun violence we have or is it only since their gun bans?

One thing we do know is that the murder rate in the UK is virtually the same as it was in 1950 and that even after the gun bans of 1968 murder rates still rose in the 80s and 90s

Our murder rate is now what it was in 1950 and has been dropping steadily since the 90s without any European or Aussie style gun bans

So our murder rate was higher than the UK before the UK put in place their ultra strict gun laws and we have found that over the last 60 years both the UK and the US have seen a peak in murder rates in the 80s to the 90s and a steady decline back to 1950 levels

So tell me since their gun laws resulted in the same murder rate trend as ours how can you say their gun laws reduced murder rates when our murder rates mirrored them albeit at a slightly higher level from a higher baseline

Could it be we will always have a higher murder rate than the UK or France because of other sociological factors than merely guns?

Yeah, it's possible. They seem a little more enlightened than average Americans.

I don't know why you would want to compare the US to UK murder rates. We're almost 4x higher than they are. We might have both peaked at about the same time but if anything, I think it shows that a major factor working against us is the widespread availability of guns.

Actually, not it doesn't.......do you realize that when they banned guns and confiscated them...their gun crime rate did not go down...? That shows your theory is wrong.....in fact...their gun crime rate went up 4% last year and they are finding more and more fully automatic weapons on their streets.....

our gun crime rate went down, not up, as more Americans bought, owned and carried guns.....

 

[2aguy]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

And you are wrong......more Americans now own guns...200 million guns were in private hands in the 1990s.....in 2016 there are now 357,000,000 guns in private hands.....this is a fact.

And our gun murder rate went ...down...that is also a fact...

you are stating something that is not true.....guns do not create gun crime or gun murder.........as the U.S. shows....

 

[2aguy]

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

And you haven't studied the issue........

Britain banned and confiscated guns in the 1990s....their gun crime rate stayed the same...in fact, it went up 4% last year and they are seeing more fully automatic weapons on the street.......

our non gun murder rate is higher than their total murder rate.....guns are not the issue....



The thing that has kept the gun murder rate of these countries low is their culture.....in particular, their criminal culture...they do not commit murder as easily or as often as American inner city criminals do.....trade our criminals for theirs and our gun crime rate would be lower than theirs.....

Guns do not cause people to commit crime.......

 

[2aguy]

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

Vermont....and the city of Baltimore have almost the exact same population number....

Vermont....almost zero gun control laws....

Baltimore....gun registration, assault weapon ban, magazine limits, waiting periods, finger printing.....

Baltimore, a city, has a higher gun crime and murder rate than Vermont....which has almost zero gun control laws....if what you say is true....the state of Vermont should be a gun murder hell hole....yet it isn't....and Baltimore should be heaven...and it is hell....

 

[2aguy]

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

Have they always had a fraction of the gun violence we have or is it only since their gun bans?

One thing we do know is that the murder rate in the UK is virtually the same as it was in 1950 and that even after the gun bans of 1968 murder rates still rose in the 80s and 90s

Our murder rate is now what it was in 1950 and has been dropping steadily since the 90s without any European or Aussie style gun bans

So our murder rate was higher than the UK before the UK put in place their ultra strict gun laws and we have found that over the last 60 years both the UK and the US have seen a peak in murder rates in the 80s to the 90s and a steady decline back to 1950 levels

So tell me since their gun laws resulted in the same murder rate trend as ours how can you say their gun laws reduced murder rates when our murder rates mirrored them albeit at a slightly higher level from a higher baseline

Could it be we will always have a higher murder rate than the UK or France because of other sociological factors than merely guns?

Yeah, it's possible. They seem a little more enlightened than average Americans.

I don't know why you would want to compare the US to UK murder rates. We're almost 4x higher than they are. We might have both peaked at about the same time but if anything, I think it shows that a major factor working against us is the widespread availability of guns.

Yeah...before you pat them on the back they allowed 12 million Europeans to be murdered in German gas chambers........

 

[2aguy]

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle....

Yes.
The question is: Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation?

Yes.

So you understand that your citation the stronger gun laws in other countries does not support the point you tried to make.
Good.
I'll say again: Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Would you like to offer another theory on why gun violence is so prevalent in our country?

If you subtract every single gun-related crime in the US, our violent crime rates is still significantly exceed that of those western states. Thus, the problem is not our gun laws, and the solution is not theirs.

The fact is that they have way fewer guns per capita. You don't want to believe that this is a result of stricter gun control laws and since correlation doesn't prove causation we're apparently left wondering why that is.

Less violent as a general rule... What's that about? No wild west mentality? Better safety net? Not forced to work insane hours to meet some societally approved level of affluence? Do you want to offer a theory on that or do you consider it an unknowable mystery?

their cultures respect authority...from a long history of Feudalism and a class system that ingrained respect for authority...that, with the violence of the 2 World wars created a general pacifism in the poplulation.....and their culture managed to train young males to be less violent adults...


They also did not import AFrican Slaves into their countries and all the social problems that we have suffered because of Europeans and Africans sending slaves over to our country....


But that is falling apart now.....they are now experiencing more gun crime...all over Europe...because decades of social welfare programs is creating the single teenage mother problem that we have here, and their social institutions can no longer create civilized adult males....they are about 50 years behind us because they had to dig out from the Wars........

You are now seeing more violence, both from natural Europeans and now foreign immigrants from muslim countries..in fact, the most violent gangs are forieign drug gangs who are using guns more and more often....even against the police.......

 

[2aguy]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle and that there are so many guns currently in circulation that gun laws will have limited effect. I'd like the gun lobby to own up to that however. They've created this shit sandwich that we're now forced to eat.

No.....the gun lobby did not.....facts show you are wrong...more Americans own and carry guns and our gun murder rate went down...nothing you said is based in the truth, the facts or the reality......

The shit storm has been created by single, teenage mothers who have had children, generation after generation, without adult men to teach the young males how to be civilized men..........that is where the shit storm comes from.....

 

[2aguy]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

You are correct about the other factors, which is why the VT and CA comparison is hard to digest... Those two states are completely different. The majority of the gun violence in CA comes from the over-crowded cities or areas that gang presence is high. VT does not have a comparable scenario, not because of gun laws, but because of its demographics.

If you are running a town where gang violence and crime are very high you are going to have different needs and approaches to tackle the problems than if you are the sheriff of Hicksville VT. If you were running the "high crime" city would you drop gun control regulations and allow any thug off the street to go buy a machine gun? Sure many of them can buy their guns illegally or will steal one, but really think about that scenario.... what would you do?

Sorry.....that is not what you guys say...

You guys say that the mere presence of guns creates more gun crime and more gun murder........and with the example of California and Vermont, or mine of Vermont and Baltimore.....it is shown not to be true.....

Chicago has 3 million people......

New York has 8 million people...

They have the same extreme gun control laws....

Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than New York.......

And New York criminals can simply drive to vermont to get guns......so it isn't Indiana that is the problem with chicago......

Different criminal cultures........not access to guns.

 

[2aguy]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

You are correct about the other factors, which is why the VT and CA comparison is hard to digest... Those two states are completely different. The majority of the gun violence in CA comes from the over-crowded cities or areas that gang presence is high. VT does not have a comparable scenario, not because of gun laws, but because of its demographics.

If you are running a town where gang violence and crime are very high you are going to have different needs and approaches to tackle the problems than if you are the sheriff of Hicksville VT. If you were running the "high crime" city would you drop gun control regulations and allow any thug off the street to go buy a machine gun? Sure many of them can buy their guns illegally or will steal one, but really think about that scenario.... what would you do?

What we keep telling you is the answer....

1) if you catch someone using a gun for crime, arrest them.

2) if you catch a felon with a gun, arrest them...

3) Put them in jail for a long time...like the Japanese.....30 years for actual gun crimes.....

Just today, our Chicago Police Commissioner, once again, bitched about the shitty job Chicago prosecutors and Judges are doing with repeat gun offenders.....putting them back on the streets over and over again.....

That's right....repeat gun offenders..that means criminals who are already barred from buying, owning or carrying guns, who get caught, again, and then are released on bail and then get light sentences...

That is the problem..that you guys refuse to understand......instead, you worry about John Q. Citizen filling out another form that the criminals never bother with........

The key is putting heavier sentences for gun crimes and focusing on gun crimes for the longer sentences.......I have posted articles on how felony gun possession is a midemeanor in major cities...even with the blood baths these cities have become.....with all of their gun control laws.....

 

[2aguy]

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

Saying that something is more likely because of circumstances can absolutely be called a fact... Like, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you are not wearing your seatbelt.

Again you fail to understand the point on the BG Checks... Yes, some criminals have other resources and if determined enough they will get a gun... Others wont, they will use a knife, or will not act out on the impulse to go shoot somebody.

Your argument is like saying that a burglar who wants to get into a house can get always get into a house if they really want to. They can break a window or pick a door lock, so what is the point of locking the door?

The noise and the time it takes to break the door or window allows you to wake up and get your gun, and call the police. And it deters the door rattling criminals....the ones who walk the neighborhood who try door knobs looking for unlocked doors......they leave the homes that are locked alone and enter the ones that are unlocked.........that is why you lock your doors.

 

[westwall]

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

I'm a Democrat, and I've owned guns for longer than you're been alive. I left California decades ago when I could see the handwriting on the wall. Progressives only want the police and the criminals to be armed. I don't agree with that so i left.

 

[2aguy]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I asked the question AFTER you said if it saved just one life, it would be successful. I didn't bait a thing. I went on your response, then you were afraid to answer my question.

When you contradict yourself, you lose credibility. I provided the number of 11,208 for 2013 and asked you what you would find acceptable. You said if it save ONE life, it was a success. 11,208 minus 1 = 11,207. Now you say it isn't a success. It would be what you say I'm trying to do if you didn't know the 11,208 number BEFORE making you one less would be successful statement. You try to change what you said now. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You didn't say let's do better. You said one less is a success.

What it amounts to is you ran your mouth without thinking and when you know you were had, you run like a little bitch.

Can you read? I said it was a success if you saved a life, and don't pretend like the whole line of questioning wasn't a bait so you could give that same answer... Your little games don't get either of us anywhere, lets just be straight forward from now on shall we?

Explain how something can be a success if only one life is saved yet 11,207 are still killed.

I was straightforward and provided you with all the information you needed. You gave an answer and now aren't man enough to stand behind it. Coward.

Easy. A life was saved

Guns in this country are used 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times stopping mass shooters......

gun murder in 2014... 8,124


so...according to your own standards....

1,500,000 v. 8,124...

guns in the hands of normal people far outweigh those in the hands of criminals.

 

[Flash]

[

Background checks at a gun store are accepted.......the problem comes in when the anti gunners...who demanded background checks at guns stores...got them....and then demanded the next step.....universal background checks....which only work with gun registration........that is too far.

And you don't need the black market to get guns from gun stores....just a baby momma with a clean record........and that is the same thing for private sales....

And no.......background checks did not save Trump...regular security saved Trump because any other left wing nut job could walk into a gun store...and this guy could have gotten an illegal gun if he really wanted one......he could have gotten a fully automatic one from Britain and sent it to himself in the U.S.....

I think we need background checks before a woman is allowed to kill her child.

If the background check indicates she is only doing it so she doesn't have to be bother with the child then she should be denied.

 

[2aguy]

[

Background checks at a gun store are accepted.......the problem comes in when the anti gunners...who demanded background checks at guns stores...got them....and then demanded the next step.....universal background checks....which only work with gun registration........that is too far.

And you don't need the black market to get guns from gun stores....just a baby momma with a clean record........and that is the same thing for private sales....

And no.......background checks did not save Trump...regular security saved Trump because any other left wing nut job could walk into a gun store...and this guy could have gotten an illegal gun if he really wanted one......he could have gotten a fully automatic one from Britain and sent it to himself in the U.S.....

I think we need background checks before a woman is allowed to kill her child.

If the background check indicates she is only doing it so she doesn't have to be bother with the child then she should be denied.

I keep saying that according to their logic, no one should be allowed access to the internet without paying a fee to be registered with the government, pass a test to show you understand how it works, and then take a test on libel and slander laws........then, after the government runs a background check on you to make sure you are not a convicted sex trafficker, cyber bully, identity thief or terrorist or terrist sympathizer..after all that, you would be allowed one hour a day of access to the internet...after all.......who needs more than that......right?

 

[2aguy]

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

Saying that something is more likely because of circumstances can absolutely be called a fact... Like, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you are not wearing your seatbelt.

Again you fail to understand the point on the BG Checks... Yes, some criminals have other resources and if determined enough they will get a gun... Others wont, they will use a knife, or will not act out on the impulse to go shoot somebody.

Your argument is like saying that a burglar who wants to get into a house can get always get into a house if they really want to. They can break a window or pick a door lock, so what is the point of locking the door?

The problem with guns in our country is the Justice System....after capture......read this story and tell me how universal background checks, gun registration or licensing gun owners stops this...

Then tell me that it letting these criminals loose after 14 hours, when they were actively trying to buy an illegal gun to use in a crime isn't the issue we should be taking on at full speed...instead of making normal people fill out more paperwork.....

ATF Lets Straw Purchasing Violent Criminal Walk In WV

After talking with them only a few short minutes, he alerted his store employees to go into “straw purchase” mode. This slows things down behind the counter and allows them time to further assess the situation and call law enforcement if necessary.

Continuing to press for information, Travis asked if they had ever owned or handled handguns before and they both indicated, ‘oh yeah. yeah, we have guns.’ but neither one was able to say what kind or model they were. After perusing the store talking about several options and deciding on a handgun, they said, ‘yeah, we’ll take that one.’

Confused, Travis asked, “What do you mean ‘you’ll both take that one’? Which one of you is going to be purchasing the gun?” to which she replied, “Oh, he’s gonna get it, I’m gonna pay for it.” So he takes them to the counter to start the process and asked, “Which one of you specifically is buying the gun?” Again she answered, “Well the gun is for him, but I’m gonna pay for it.”

Still in ‘straw purchase mode’, Travis instructs his staff to call it in to get an approval or denial and start the paperwork to ensure they have a completed and signed 4473. As you know, the questions beneath the personal information boxes are specifically intended to identify potential straw purchasers and individuals not allowed to own guns:


And then they went to a pawn shop.........and still didn't get the gun....and then what did the Justice system do to the actual straw buyers...they let them go......

Guns are not the problem...the Justice system is...

No more than 45 minutes later, a friend of his who owns a local pawn shop called Travis back to tell him those same individuals had just left his shop where they were denied the purchase of a handgun. Within 15 minutes of that phone call, Franklin returned to Travis’ gun shop only this time, she not only came in with her accomplice, but also another woman willing to fill out a 4473.

She returned to the same case and pointed out the same handgun to purchase. At the same time, Travis was working with Raymond Fox, a friend of his who happens to also be a retired county officer. Playing it cool, Travis said loud enough for Franklin and her accomplices to hear, “You know Raymond, I just don’t think I have the space for this pistol right now, I’m gonna have to pass.”

Franklin immediately approached Fox trying to buy the pistol from him on the spot, saying, “You want to sell that gun, I’ll give you $500 right now, what do you want? I’ll buy your gun right now!”

Continuing to run the new purchaser’s 4473, Travis made the call to the state police to report Franklin’s return to his store and inform them of their stop at the pawn shop. Troopers arrived and parked in his garage, waiting for the right time to enter and apprehend Franklin and her accomplices.

During her arrest, troopers found a large amount of marijuana on her and thousands of dollars of stolen credit cards, plus a scanner which can capture credit card information at the register. Trooper Campbell informed Travis they were booking Franklin on the marijuana possession to hold her in custody and that Agent Smith with the ATF had been notified to handle the firearms charges from that point.

But here’s where gun laws and the bureaucratic red tape fail:

14 hours later, Franklin and her accomplices were spotted in a local liquor store. Although she had outstanding warrants in other states and several additional charges in West Virginia from her arrest at Travis’ store, she was a free woman.

 

[2aguy]

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

Saying that something is more likely because of circumstances can absolutely be called a fact... Like, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you are not wearing your seatbelt.

Again you fail to understand the point on the BG Checks... Yes, some criminals have other resources and if determined enough they will get a gun... Others wont, they will use a knife, or will not act out on the impulse to go shoot somebody.

Your argument is like saying that a burglar who wants to get into a house can get always get into a house if they really want to. They can break a window or pick a door lock, so what is the point of locking the door?

The criminal justice system does not take gun crimes seriously, that is why we have gun murder, not access to guns........check out how much time this straw buyer got for giving a gun to a felon who murdered a police officer..then tell me this isn't the real problem.....

Jalita Johnson Is Barack Obama's Gun Control Legacy - Bearing Arms - Barack Obama, Straw-Purchasing

Jalita Johnson straw purchased a handgun for her boyfriend and felon Marcus Wheeler.

Wheeler then used that gun to shoot Omaha, Nebraska Police Officer Kerrie Orozoco in the center of her chest, just over the top of her body armor, as she was serving a warrant.

----
Officer Orozozo died hours before she was to begin maternity leave, Her newborn daughter is now motherless, her husband a widower, and her stepchildren devastated.

Jalita Johnson’s penalty for helping to facilitate this murder and other gun crimes committed by her felon boyfriend?

A slap on the wrist.

A Clayton County woman was sentenced to a year of probation for lying about the gun she purchased for her boyfriend, a convicted felon who used the Glock to kill a Nebraska police officer.

Jalita Jenera Johnson, 26, must also complete 40 hours of community service and serve 180 days of home confinement, U.S. Attorney John Horn’s office said Monday. Johnson pleaded guilty in August.


Johnson intentionally and willfully made a strawman purchase for a known violent felon, who then used that gun to murder a police officer.

Tell me how she got a year of probation and 40 hours of community service if gun crimes are taken seriously by gun banners in this country?

They could have given her 10 years.........