Kamau Bell...

[g5000]

I am personally against a total gun ban/confiscation/repeal of the Second Amendment. I just believe gun control advocates should make intelligent arguments for bans whose outcomes would actually achieve their stated goals.

Assault weapons bans and whatnot will not achieve their goals. Only a comprehensive gun ban would do that.


My personal opinion is that getting a gun should be like getting a car. You have to get a license and prove you are not a menace to society just like you do when you take a driving exam.

After you acquire a gun license, you can choose to buy or not to buy guns. Just like you can choose to drive or not drive a car.

And when you buy a gun, what you buy is between you and the gun shop owner. You can buy whatever you wish without the government knowing what you bought.



We have a pretty broken system when a state can ban you from owning a knife with a four inch blade but can't stop you from buying an AR-15. That's just plain stupid beyond belief.

 

[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.......

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.

No...gun bans had no effect on their crime rate...especially in Britain.....British people owned guns up to 1996...then they had the Dunblane shooting and they banned guns...the gun murder rate before the gun ban was the same as the gun murder rate after the ban..except that after the ban the gun murder rate went up...for a good decade...then returned to the same level as before the gun ban....the gun ban had no effect on their gun murder rate....

Banning guns had no effect on the gun murder rate in Britain....and as to the gun violence rate....it has continued to go up along with their over all violence rate.....the difference between the U.S. and Britain..their criminals use guns but they do not use them to commit murder. Bans have nothing to do with their gun murder rate.

And what about the U.S.....what happened as more AMericans bought, own and carry guns......? Our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down..the exact opposite of Britain and Australia.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- 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.

 

[2aguy]

I am personally against a total gun ban/confiscation/repeal of the Second Amendment. I just believe gun control advocates should make intelligent arguments for bans whose outcomes would actually achieve their stated goals.

Assault weapons bans and whatnot will not achieve their goals. Only a comprehensive gun ban would do that.


My personal opinion is that getting a gun should be like getting a car. You have to get a license and prove you are not a menace to society just like you do when you take a driving exam.

After you acquire a gun license, you can choose to buy or not to buy guns. Just like you can choose to drive or not drive a car.

And when you buy a gun, what you buy is between you and the gun shop owner. You can buy whatever you wish without the government knowing what you bought.



We have a pretty broken system when a state can ban you from owning a knife with a four inch blade but can't stop you from buying an AR-15. That's just plain stupid beyond belief.

A gun license is unConstitutional.....it is a poll tax on a Right...just like the democrats when they put a Poll Tax on voting for blacks........driving a car is not a Right, owning and carrying a gun is.....

And as I have shown....comprehensive gun bans do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....

 

[g5000]

After the gun homicide rate had been climbing for decades, a gun ban was implemented in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre. After that, gun homicides spiked briefly, but have been on a steady downward trend ever since.

The UK experiences about 50 to 60 gun homicides a year now.

 

[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.....

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.

The gun violence rate is going up...not down, their ability to civilize young males is eroding....and so their violence rates are going up, including their gun violence rates...as the links I provided show.....and it is a big island...and they still can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals...dittos Britain....

Background checks are not effective at all.....just ask police in major cities where they are seeing record gun murders since the Ferguson effect began.......and of course the actual goal...since current federal background checks don't work...is to use that failure to push another failure....Universal Background checks...which will be a failure for the same reason that current, federally mandated background checks are a failure.....and the only reason the anti gunners want UBCs....they want universal gun registration..which you need to lie about the effectiveness of UBCs.....

 

[2aguy]

After the gun homicide rate had been climbing for decades, a gun ban was implemented in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre. After that, gun homicides spiked briefly, but have been on a constant downward trend ever since.

\
No....they reached the same point they were at as before the ban in the 1990s...nothing changed....British criminals have not used guns to commit murder.....they use them for robberies and rape...but they don't kill their victims....but that too is changing .....

 

[2aguy]

After the gun homicide rate had been climbing for decades, a gun ban was implemented in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre. After that, gun homicides spiked briefly, but have been on a steady downward trend ever since.

The UK experiences about 50 to 60 gun homicides a year now.

And you are wrong about the British gun homicide stats...they returned to the same level they were at in 1990....

The stats diagram...link to the image...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/UK-Firearm-crime-statistics.png

 

[2aguy]

After the gun homicide rate had been climbing for decades, a gun ban was implemented in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre. After that, gun homicides spiked briefly, but have been on a steady downward trend ever since.

The UK experiences about 50 to 60 gun homicides a year now.

The same level as before the ban....the ban did nothing for gun murder....

 

[g5000]

After the gun homicide rate had been climbing for decades, a gun ban was implemented in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre. After that, gun homicides spiked briefly, but have been on a steady downward trend ever since.

The UK experiences about 50 to 60 gun homicides a year now.

And you are wrong about the British gun homicide stats...they returned to the same level they were at in 1990....

The stats diagram...link to the image...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/UK-Firearm-crime-statistics.png

You say "returned", while ignoring the fact they have been on a constant downward trend which shows no sign of changing course.

In a few years, you innumerates will be saying, "They have returned to the same level they were at in 1980."

 

[BluesLegend]

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 ?

Lets begin following them instead of ignoring them. If the illegal lovers have the votes to change those laws have at it, but they don't. America disagrees with illegal loving traitors.

 

[Timmy]

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...

42% means nothing . What's the actual #? If it went from 5 to 7 that's a fail vs a big US city that sees hundreds ?

 

[Rustic]

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

He was wrong at the time… Simple as that.

 

[Rustic]

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.

In urban areas where people outnumber firearms many times over, violent crime is high.
In rural areas were firearms outnumber people many many times over, violent crime is low.
Firearm ownership is an absolutely right, it's the backbone of the constitution… fact

 

[Rustic]

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.

First of all, you do realize that if there was a firearm ban/confiscation in this country millions on both sides would die, Second, our military would never stand for for any type of firearm confiscation they are at least 90-95% pro second amendment, third, The financial damage alone would shut the country down.
The Second Amendment is the backbone of the constitution… Fact

 

[Rustic]

I am personally against a total gun ban/confiscation/repeal of the Second Amendment. I just believe gun control advocates should make intelligent arguments for bans whose outcomes would actually achieve their stated goals.

Assault weapons bans and whatnot will not achieve their goals. Only a comprehensive gun ban would do that.


My personal opinion is that getting a gun should be like getting a car. You have to get a license and prove you are not a menace to society just like you do when you take a driving exam.

After you acquire a gun license, you can choose to buy or not to buy guns. Just like you can choose to drive or not drive a car.

And when you buy a gun, what you buy is between you and the gun shop owner. You can buy whatever you wish without the government knowing what you bought.



We have a pretty broken system when a state can ban you from owning a knife with a four inch blade but can't stop you from buying an AR-15. That's just plain stupid beyond belief.

First of all an AR-15 is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less...
The Second Amendment makes firearm ownership an absolute right, the same cannot be said about drivers license and cars...

And yes, the federal government should have no knowledge of what anyone purchases for firearms and ammo.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Agreed. He comes off hard left, definitely leans left, but certainly does present many sides of the issues. My wife loves his show and I enjoy watching it with her. Although I rarely agree with his point of view, it is interesting to see his point of view on different issues since he does it with humor and is not afraid to listen to other points of view.

 

[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.

Agreed. He comes off hard left, definitely leans left, but certainly does present many sides of the issues. My wife loves his show and I enjoy watching it with her. Although I rarely agree with his point of view, it is interesting to see his point of view on different issues since he does it with humor and is not afraid to listen to other points of view.

I'm amazed CNN allows him to pursue all sides of the story, the rest of CNN certainly doesn't. The rest of CNN pretty much sits around sucking memories of Obama's cock....

 

[2aguy]

After the gun homicide rate had been climbing for decades, a gun ban was implemented in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre. After that, gun homicides spiked briefly, but have been on a steady downward trend ever since.

The UK experiences about 50 to 60 gun homicides a year now.

And you are wrong about the British gun homicide stats...they returned to the same level they were at in 1990....

The stats diagram...link to the image...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/UK-Firearm-crime-statistics.png

You say "returned", while ignoring the fact they have been on a constant downward trend which shows no sign of changing course.

In a few years, you innumerates will be saying, "They have returned to the same level they were at in 1980."

Not according to the actual stats....which I posted.....and since gun crime is up all over Britain...including 42% in London and at least 10% in the other major cities.......you are wrong....

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Agreed. He comes off hard left, definitely leans left, but certainly does present many sides of the issues. My wife loves his show and I enjoy watching it with her. Although I rarely agree with his point of view, it is interesting to see his point of view on different issues since he does it with humor and is not afraid to listen to other points of view.

I'm amazed CNN allows him to pursue all sides of the story, the rest of CNN certainly doesn't. The rest of CNN pretty much sits around sucking memories of Obama's cock....

CNN is trying to make Fox News money, so they have more talking heads than actual journalists. They'll have a reporter give a 2-3 minute report then the talking head will spend 30 minutes talking about it, obviously with a lot of personal opinions.

 

[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.

In urban areas where people outnumber firearms many times over, violent crime is high.
In rural areas were firearms outnumber people many many times over, violent crime is low.
Firearm ownership is an absolutely right, it's the backbone of the constitution… fact

The closer people live together, the more violent they become. It has nothing to do with gun ownership. Fact.

I say again, I support the Second Amendment. Fact.