Im ready to curb gun murders. Lets work together

[Aries]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

So you're saying getting guns out of the hands of criminals deters crime? Great!

 

[Aries]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

that's if they are "starting trouble" for fun
most crime is not "I'm bored let's assault someone"
most crime is "i need that money let's rob them"
a lot of crime is out of desperation. I'd rather be robbed at someone who was NOT carrying a gun.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[Q

you love them, the other citizens who make money love them, the cops who are padding their stats love them, and the lives are being saved by each gun being turned in love them..
so.... what's the issue?

The guns that I have seen turned in for these little buyback PR stunts are worthless pieces of junk for the most part.

Do you know that the police usually pick out the few good firearms and then sell them at auction?

the new trend is for law abiding 2nd amendment lovers

to stand outside the place where the "gun buy back" program is happening

and buy firearms directly before they turn it in

 

[Flash]

[Q

you love them, the other citizens who make money love them, the cops who are padding their stats love them, and the lives are being saved by each gun being turned in love them..
so.... what's the issue?

The guns that I have seen turned in for these little buyback PR stunts are worthless pieces of junk for the most part.

Do you know that the police usually pick out the few good firearms and then sell them at auction?

the new trend is for law abiding 2nd amendment lovers

to stand outside the place where the "gun buy back" program is happening

and buy firearms directly before they turn it in

I belong to a fairly large gun club and the police and county sheriff deputies do a lot of training at the range. We know these guys pretty well.

Whenever there is a buyback program the police will make the better guns available to club members at an auction. However, the great majority of the firearms that are turned in are junk that nobody wants. It is really a joke. It is mostly done for PR purposes. Contrary to what these stupid and naive Libtards think it does nothing of substance to take guns out of the hands of criminals. Poor waste of taxpayer's money.

 

[Brain357]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

 

[Rustic]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

So you're saying getting guns out of the hands of criminals deters crime? Great!

Which more frivolous gun laws will never do… Only a dumbass would think so

 

[Rustic]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

Like I said, more frivolous gun laws Are what criminals want. Law abiding citizens obey laws criminals do not, never have - never will…

 

[Rustic]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

that's if they are "starting trouble" for fun
most crime is not "I'm bored let's assault someone"
most crime is "i need that money let's rob them"
a lot of crime is out of desperation. I'd rather be robbed at someone who was NOT carrying a gun.

Are you a stupid motherfucker or what? Do you really think more frivolous firearm laws stops criminal activity?

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[2aguy]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

And by disarming the law abiding victim he keeps that advantage. An Armed victim has a better chance of surviving the encounter than an unarmed victim......

 

[Brain357]

Buy more guns and ammo...

I haven't noticed the big crime drop we were supposed to get with concealed carry.

 

[Brain357]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

And by disarming the law abiding victim he keeps that advantage. An Armed victim has a better chance of surviving the encounter than an unarmed victim......

Disarming the criminal sure would be better. Defenders are shot and killed.

But I don't think the OP wants to debate guns. So throw them in jailed and decrease poverty. Worked for Bill Clinton.

 

[Aries]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

And by disarming the law abiding victim he keeps that advantage. An Armed victim has a better chance of surviving the encounter than an unarmed victim......

no one is advocating disarming the law abiding citizens. That's just the paranoia talking.

 

[2aguy]

Buy more guns and ammo...

I haven't noticed the big crime drop we were supposed to get with concealed carry.

Here you go...4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997......over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...

--gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Voters’ perceptions of crime continue to conflict with reality

Official government crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23%, respectively, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which tallies serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,000 jurisdictions around the nation.

Another Justice Department agency, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, produces its own annual crime report, based on a survey of more than 90,000 households that counts crimes that aren’t reported to police in addition to those that are. BJS data show that violent crime and property crime rates fell 26% and 22%, respectively, between 2008 and 2015 (again, the most recent year available).

----

These polling trends stand in sharp contrast to the long-term crime trends reported by the FBI and BJS. Both agencies have documented big decreases in violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when U.S. crime rates reached their peak. The BJS data, for instance, show that violent and property crime levels in 2015 were 77% and 69% below their 1993 levels, respectively.

-----
Violent Crime Is 16% Lower Than a Decade Ago, So Why Are Gun Sales So High?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, which uses a slightly different definition of violent crime (it doesn't collect murder statistics, but does include simple assault), says violent crime has plummeted 77% since 1993 with just 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, compared with 79.8 victimizations 23 years ago. It's clear we're living in a much safer world today than just a few years ago, let alone decades before:

Image source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2016.

Yet at the same time, more Americans than ever own a gun.

While the percentage of U.S. households with a gun in them has remained fairly constant since the 1990s at around 45%, the actual number of households has dramatically increased over time.

For example, there were 99 million households in 1995 but over 124 million in 2015, meaning there would have been around 44 million households with guns in them 20 years ago, but 55 million households today.

 

[2aguy]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

And by disarming the law abiding victim he keeps that advantage. An Armed victim has a better chance of surviving the encounter than an unarmed victim......

no one is advocating disarming the law abiding citizens. That's just the paranoia talking.

No...that is wrong.....the democrats push these laws all the time....had hilary won she would have continued appointing judges to rule against gun rights and even had a plan to sue gun makers into limiting the kinds of guns available to people...and the 4th Circuit just ruled that military weapons ....rifles and pistols, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment....the attacks on the 2nd amendment are on going and never stop.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

I haven't noticed the big crime drop we were supposed to get with concealed carry.

Firearm ownership is not all about self-defense, it's an absolutely right so it's none of the fucking governments business why anyone's buying a firearm.
Anyway, everything progressives do is an over reaction… Fact

 

[Brain357]

Buy more guns and ammo...

I haven't noticed the big crime drop we were supposed to get with concealed carry.

Here you go...4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997......over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...

--gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Voters’ perceptions of crime continue to conflict with reality

Official government crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23%, respectively, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which tallies serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,000 jurisdictions around the nation.

Another Justice Department agency, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, produces its own annual crime report, based on a survey of more than 90,000 households that counts crimes that aren’t reported to police in addition to those that are. BJS data show that violent crime and property crime rates fell 26% and 22%, respectively, between 2008 and 2015 (again, the most recent year available).

----

These polling trends stand in sharp contrast to the long-term crime trends reported by the FBI and BJS. Both agencies have documented big decreases in violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when U.S. crime rates reached their peak. The BJS data, for instance, show that violent and property crime levels in 2015 were 77% and 69% below their 1993 levels, respectively.

-----
Violent Crime Is 16% Lower Than a Decade Ago, So Why Are Gun Sales So High?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, which uses a slightly different definition of violent crime (it doesn't collect murder statistics, but does include simple assault), says violent crime has plummeted 77% since 1993 with just 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, compared with 79.8 victimizations 23 years ago. It's clear we're living in a much safer world today than just a few years ago, let alone decades before:

Image source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2016.

Yet at the same time, more Americans than ever own a gun.

While the percentage of U.S. households with a gun in them has remained fairly constant since the 1990s at around 45%, the actual number of households has dramatically increased over time.

For example, there were 99 million households in 1995 but over 124 million in 2015, meaning there would have been around 44 million households with guns in them 20 years ago, but 55 million households today.

Yes the bill Clinton crime bill has worked great. Concealed carry has grown a lot in just the last few years. Haven't seen a decline. Milwaukee not doing so well.

 

[2aguy]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

And by disarming the law abiding victim he keeps that advantage. An Armed victim has a better chance of surviving the encounter than an unarmed victim......

no one is advocating disarming the law abiding citizens. That's just the paranoia talking.

Here was the clinton plan...from the Clinton Presidential Library....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[Rustic]

Firearms have never been the problem, people kill people not firearms…

Right but people who are facing criminals who are not armed with a gun have a better chance of fighting off their attacker.. it's keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's the goal.

Not generally.

Criminals, being the bad guys, won't start trouble unless they have a clear advantage in size, numbers or weapons.

Thus, if it looks like they might lose, then nothing happens.


THe only way to give the victim a hidden advantage is to allow them to conceal a weapon.

By having a gun the crimInal has an advantage. The easy availability of guns empowers criminals. They can now victimize people they otherwise would not.

And by disarming the law abiding victim he keeps that advantage. An Armed victim has a better chance of surviving the encounter than an unarmed victim......

Disarming the criminal sure would be better. Defenders are shot and killed.

But I don't think the OP wants to debate guns. So throw them in jailed and decrease poverty. Worked for Bill Clinton.

An American citizen can only rely on themselves when it comes right down to it for self-defense…

 

[2aguy]

Buy more guns and ammo...

I haven't noticed the big crime drop we were supposed to get with concealed carry.

Here you go...4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997......over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...

--gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Voters’ perceptions of crime continue to conflict with reality

Official government crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23%, respectively, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which tallies serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,000 jurisdictions around the nation.

Another Justice Department agency, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, produces its own annual crime report, based on a survey of more than 90,000 households that counts crimes that aren’t reported to police in addition to those that are. BJS data show that violent crime and property crime rates fell 26% and 22%, respectively, between 2008 and 2015 (again, the most recent year available).

----

These polling trends stand in sharp contrast to the long-term crime trends reported by the FBI and BJS. Both agencies have documented big decreases in violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when U.S. crime rates reached their peak. The BJS data, for instance, show that violent and property crime levels in 2015 were 77% and 69% below their 1993 levels, respectively.

-----
Violent Crime Is 16% Lower Than a Decade Ago, So Why Are Gun Sales So High?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, which uses a slightly different definition of violent crime (it doesn't collect murder statistics, but does include simple assault), says violent crime has plummeted 77% since 1993 with just 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, compared with 79.8 victimizations 23 years ago. It's clear we're living in a much safer world today than just a few years ago, let alone decades before:

Image source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2016.

Yet at the same time, more Americans than ever own a gun.

While the percentage of U.S. households with a gun in them has remained fairly constant since the 1990s at around 45%, the actual number of households has dramatically increased over time.

For example, there were 99 million households in 1995 but over 124 million in 2015, meaning there would have been around 44 million households with guns in them 20 years ago, but 55 million households today.

Yes the bill Clinton crime bill has worked great. Concealed carry has grown a lot in just the last few years. Haven't seen a decline. Milwaukee not doing so well.

I understand you can't understand numbers ...but what the links show is that as more people carried gun for self defense, the gun crime rates plummeted.....and even at the local levels they declined.....

You have been gone awhile ....and right away you start to lie.