Kamau Bell...

[Rustic]

I have to say I like the guy, I'm watching his show right now.
California gun laws are frivolous at best.
He listens to all sides of the issue it seems, more than I can say about 99.9% of progressives.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I have to say I like the guy, I'm watching his show right now.
California gun laws are frivolous at best.
He listens to all sides of the issue it seems, more than I can say about 99.9% of progressives.

Trump listened to both side before pulling out of Paris....in fact he probably listened more to the boosters. Obama never did this.

 

[Timmy]

Why are they frivolous?

 

[2aguy]

Why are they frivolous?

They do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and they effect law abiding people who do not use their guns to commit crimes. They punish normal gun owners with no effect on criminals. That is why they are frivolous.

 

[Rustic]

Why are they frivolous?

First of all they have a 30 question test, then they have to have a locked case to walk the firearm out of the store.
Like a 10 day cooling off period before you can go back and pick up the firearm which is absolute stupidity Who ever thought that up should be pistol whipped.
But that's a states rights issue, they can do what they like in crazy cali....

 

[hjmick]

I have to say I like the guy, I'm watching his show right now.
California gun laws are frivolous at best.
He listens to all sides of the issue it seems, more than I can say about 99.9% of progressives.

So what you're saying is, you want more Kamau Bell...

 

[Rustic]

Actually I loved the show, and the ending was fucking perfect. He asked if he is going to keep the firearm that He bought... his answer was it is no one's business... that is exactly right.
The fucking federal government has no right to know what I have for firearms and no one else has a right and enless I tell them. So the fucking progressive control freaks can fucking fuck off... fuck off... fuck off....

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

In Colorado if you get a firearm from your dad's will you have to get a background check before you can legally own it, even if you're in possession of it prior to his death. They want to ban all shotguns that have the "capability" to hold more than 3 shells even though the manufacturer has blocked the magazine.

 

[Timmy]

Why are they frivolous?

They do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and they effect law abiding people who do not use their guns to commit crimes. They punish normal gun owners with no effect on criminals. That is why they are frivolous.

Hmmm. Would you say the same about immigration laws ?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Why are they frivolous?

They do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and they effect law abiding people who do not use their guns to commit crimes. They punish normal gun owners with no effect on criminals. That is why they are frivolous.

Hmmm. Would you say the same about immigration laws ?

Apples and oranges Tim. Illegals are a detriment, armed citizens are a positive.

 

[2aguy]

Why are they frivolous?

They do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and they effect law abiding people who do not use their guns to commit crimes. They punish normal gun owners with no effect on criminals. That is why they are frivolous.

Hmmm. Would you say the same about immigration laws ?

You don't understand how laws work. We have laws that state if you use a gun to commit a crime you can be arrested, if you buy, own or carry a gun as a convicted criminal you can be arrested. The laws that go beyond that, licensing, registration, background checks...do not effect criminals since they do not engage in those activities....since they are already against the law for them...so the only ones those laws target are people who are not already criminals...do you understand that?

So we have immigration laws that say you have to fill out paperwork and get permission to be here...if you don't, you are breaking the law and can be arrested....just like the basic gun laws that say if you use a gun to commit a crime you can be arrested.


So...we already have laws against criminal behavior, and when caught we can arrest people and lock them up. Targeting law abiding citizens with paperwork, and dates that if they fail to meet them, they become criminals...is the problem...since they have not used their guns in actual criminal behavior.

 

[g5000]

Like a 10 day cooling off period before you can go back and pick up the firearm which is absolute stupidity Who ever thought that up should be pistol whipped.

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.” - Donald Trump

 

[2aguy]

Like a 10 day cooling off period before you can go back and pick up the firearm which is absolute stupidity Who ever thought that up should be pistol whipped.

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.” - Donald Trump

And he is wrong. So? Let me talk to him about the issue and I will show him the error of his thinking....

 

[g5000]

I think background checks have been very effective. An assault weapons ban (AWB) is ineffective. At least the version of the 90s was. The Democrats want to take it a step further. Under the Clinton era AWB, new high capacity magazines were banned from being manufactured, but existing ones were grandfathered. The Democrats want to take away the grandfather exemption.

Nevertheless, an AWB would be ineffective. The fact is that the vast majority of the 10,000 annual gun homicides in the US are not committed with assault weapons. We aren't shooting each other 30 times.

Someone will be along shortly to post a link to a story about someone being shot 30 times, demonstrating they are missing the point entirely and therefore an idiot.

At this point, the only gun control in America that would actually be effective at cutting the gun homicide rate would be a total gun ban and confiscation like Australia.

Anything else in between would be a colossal waste of time.

So, in short, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

This gun topic will probably run for 80-plus pages, like all gun topics do. But you just read everything you need to know in this post.

That just leaves the question whether or not you support a total gun ban or leaving guns alone. If you support anything in between, you are a clueless idiot.

Then there is the question of background checks. They are definitely effective.

Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them. Those people are idiots.

There are a lot of idiots in the gun control debate.

 

[2aguy]

I think background checks have been very effective. An assault weapons ban (AWB) is ineffective. At least the version of the 90s was. The Democrats want to take it a step further. Under the Clinton era AWB, new high capacity magazines were banned, but existing ones were grandfathered. The Democrats want to take away the grandfather exemption.

Nevertheless, an AWB would be ineffective. The fact is that the vast majority of the 10,000 annual gun homicides in the US are not committed with assault weapons.

At this point, the only gun control in America that would actually be effective at cutting the gun homicide rate would be a total gun ban and confiscation like Australia.

Anything else in between would be a colossal waste of time.

So, in short, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

This gun topic will probably run for 80-plus pages, like all gun topics do. But you just read everything you need to know in this post.

That just leaves the question whether or not you support a total gun ban or leaving guns alone.

Then there is the question of background checks. They are definitely effective.

Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them. Those people are idiots.

The gun ban isn't working in Australia.....it has failed there as well....they now call Melbourne, Australia, the city of the Gun.....

Magazine limits are stupid....criminals don't obey them and mass shooters can change magazines as they kill.....normal, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have whatever magazine they want......

Background checks are not effective....the 9,616 gun murders in 2015 were not stopped by background checks...since criminals use straw buyers to get their guns...which means the buyer passes the background check.....and the mass shooter, they can pass background checks.....

They aren't effective...at all.......

The only effective gun control that works 100% of the time.....when someone commits a crime with a gun, arrest them, lock them up for 30 years. If you do that, then you don't have to worry about background checks or magazine limits.

 

[2aguy]

I think background checks have been very effective. An assault weapons ban (AWB) is ineffective. At least the version of the 90s was. The Democrats want to take it a step further. Under the Clinton era AWB, new high capacity magazines were banned, but existing ones were grandfathered. The Democrats want to take away the grandfather exemption.

Nevertheless, an AWB would be ineffective. The fact is that the vast majority of the 10,000 annual gun homicides in the US are not committed with assault weapons. We aren't shooting each other 30 times.

Someone will be along shortly to post a link to a story about someone being shot 30 times, demonstrating they are missing the point entirely and therefore an idiot.

At this point, the only gun control in America that would actually be effective at cutting the gun homicide rate would be a total gun ban and confiscation like Australia.

Anything else in between would be a colossal waste of time.

So, in short, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

This gun topic will probably run for 80-plus pages, like all gun topics do. But you just read everything you need to know in this post.

That just leaves the question whether or not you support a total gun ban or leaving guns alone. If you support anything in between, you are a clueless idiot.

Then there is the question of background checks. They are definitely effective.

Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them. Those people are idiots.

There are a lot of idiots in the gun control debate.

The Australian gun ban success story is a myth.....here is the truth....

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.
============
The second part of the series....
Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

But....military weapons?

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

 

[2aguy]

I think background checks have been very effective. An assault weapons ban (AWB) is ineffective. At least the version of the 90s was. The Democrats want to take it a step further. Under the Clinton era AWB, new high capacity magazines were banned from being manufactured, but existing ones were grandfathered. The Democrats want to take away the grandfather exemption.

Nevertheless, an AWB would be ineffective. The fact is that the vast majority of the 10,000 annual gun homicides in the US are not committed with assault weapons. We aren't shooting each other 30 times.

Someone will be along shortly to post a link to a story about someone being shot 30 times, demonstrating they are missing the point entirely and therefore an idiot.

At this point, the only gun control in America that would actually be effective at cutting the gun homicide rate would be a total gun ban and confiscation like Australia.

Anything else in between would be a colossal waste of time.

So, in short, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

This gun topic will probably run for 80-plus pages, like all gun topics do. But you just read everything you need to know in this post.

That just leaves the question whether or not you support a total gun ban or leaving guns alone. If you support anything in between, you are a clueless idiot.

Then there is the question of background checks. They are definitely effective.

Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them. Those people are idiots.

There are a lot of idiots in the gun control debate.

Also...Britain banned guns just like Australia did in the 1990s......gun crime in London is up 42% last year......and up all over the country.......

Gun bans do not work for criminals...

 

[g5000]

I think background checks have been very effective. An assault weapons ban (AWB) is ineffective. At least the version of the 90s was. The Democrats want to take it a step further. Under the Clinton era AWB, new high capacity magazines were banned, but existing ones were grandfathered. The Democrats want to take away the grandfather exemption.

Nevertheless, an AWB would be ineffective. The fact is that the vast majority of the 10,000 annual gun homicides in the US are not committed with assault weapons.

At this point, the only gun control in America that would actually be effective at cutting the gun homicide rate would be a total gun ban and confiscation like Australia.

Anything else in between would be a colossal waste of time.

So, in short, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

This gun topic will probably run for 80-plus pages, like all gun topics do. But you just read everything you need to know in this post.

That just leaves the question whether or not you support a total gun ban or leaving guns alone.

Then there is the question of background checks. They are definitely effective.

Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them. Those people are idiots.

The gun ban isn't working in Australia.....it has failed there as well....they now call Melbourne, Australia, the city of the Gun.....

The gun homicide rate has plunged in Australia. So gun bans are effective.

Background checks are not effective....the 9,616 gun murders in 2015 were not stopped by background checks...since criminals use straw buyers to get their guns...which means the buyer passes the background check.....and the mass shooter, they can pass background checks.....

Thank you for fulfilling my prediction that, "Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them."

Arguing that background checks aren't effective because some people violate the law is like arguing we should do away with laws against murder and immigration because some people aren't following those rules.

The homicide rate in America plunged after the Brady Bill introduced background checks. So they are effective.

 

[SYTFE]

I have to say I like the guy, I'm watching his show right now.
California gun laws are frivolous at best.
He listens to all sides of the issue it seems, more than I can say about 99.9% of progressives.

I saw that episode. It was a good one. Interesting that the main reason he and his wife decided it was time to get a gun was basically because they have zero faith in police. The bit about Kennesaw was also pretty interesting.

 

[g5000]

I think background checks have been very effective. An assault weapons ban (AWB) is ineffective. At least the version of the 90s was. The Democrats want to take it a step further. Under the Clinton era AWB, new high capacity magazines were banned from being manufactured, but existing ones were grandfathered. The Democrats want to take away the grandfather exemption.

Nevertheless, an AWB would be ineffective. The fact is that the vast majority of the 10,000 annual gun homicides in the US are not committed with assault weapons. We aren't shooting each other 30 times.

Someone will be along shortly to post a link to a story about someone being shot 30 times, demonstrating they are missing the point entirely and therefore an idiot.

At this point, the only gun control in America that would actually be effective at cutting the gun homicide rate would be a total gun ban and confiscation like Australia.

Anything else in between would be a colossal waste of time.

So, in short, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

This gun topic will probably run for 80-plus pages, like all gun topics do. But you just read everything you need to know in this post.

That just leaves the question whether or not you support a total gun ban or leaving guns alone. If you support anything in between, you are a clueless idiot.

Then there is the question of background checks. They are definitely effective.

Someone will be along shortly to argue they are not 100 percent effective, and that we should therefore do away with them. Those people are idiots.

There are a lot of idiots in the gun control debate.

Also...Britain banned guns just like Australia did in the 1990s......gun crime in London is up 42% last year......and up all over the country.......

And yet still much, much lower than the homicide rate in the US. So comprehensive gun bans are very effective.

You are showing your innumeracy.


If you have ten thousand gun homicides each year (United States), and they rise by 42 percent, that's really something.

But if you have 50 gun homicides in an entire country each year (United Kingdom), and they rise by 42 percent in one city, that's not really an argument that comprehensive gun bans don't work.