Question for all "gun" control advocates.

[Humorme]

so instead of promoting gun laws that are already in place, promote stricter sentencing for crimes committed with a gun, rather than what Jerry Brown has done in California which is to lighten sentences? Is the gun on trial or the person? that is the ultimate question. so good, you're for a Federal punishment of crime with a gun is life in prison and killing someone with a gun is death sentence. ok? You think that would deter use of guns? I do.

Go ahead have a death sentence but if you remember almost all the mass shooters are dead already!
And the laws are strict enough. This guy slipped through the cracks. Data entry error.
BUT people are so blown out of proportion of 26 deaths while ignoring that during that same time period Sunday:
26 people shot
109 people died on Sunday in car accidents and
2,464 babies killed by abortion

But which event had 24 hour 5 days or more coverage? WHY are guns and not the shooters the target of MSM?
Why not car accidents that kill 109 people EVERY DAY not the 24/5 day topic? or 2,464 babies?
People your priorities are so screwed up by the extremely BIASED and truly ignorant MSM!

Guns are the target because they are inanimate objects that we can control. We can’t control psychos who want to go out and murder people but I can gaurentee you they will kill a lot less people if they can’t get their hands on a semi automatic weapon. A maniac with a knife does a lot less damage than a maniac shooting 800 rounds per second.

you can't control guns that is a really big lie. if you could, then there wouldn't be any. we know that. that's why in our society, we must have deterrent laws in place, where a person must truly consider the consequence of his or her action. again, you said you weren't against that. are you now saying you are?

I'm also ok with if a person uses a car as a weapon or a knife or rock getting death for killing someone.

Yes we can control guns through legislation.
I said I supported strict gun laws but they are really pointless if not nationally enforced as ones states lose laws can damage states with strict laws.

you cannot control guns. zip. the proof is in the latest massacre. you can't. A failure to manually fill in the information of the dude and he got outside the system. so no, no you can't because laws are already on the books and they don't work. You cannot stop human error no matter how fking bad you think you can. you can't.

And again, why are you against human laws that punish the shooter? why? death sentence for use of a gun in a death that was a murder? why are you nut jobs against punishment?

In a free nation you cannot control guns. The issue, as one other poster so eloquently points out, guns aren't the real issue. With those who have a hatred of firearms this is about gun control. It's not about saving lives nor protecting the innocent. It's not about reducing the numbers of people killed by firearms; it's strictly about control.

What we can do as a society is to deny entry into the United States by people from those countries that are at war with us. We can slow down the medical profession's efforts to put all Americans on drugs. We can force the medical and mental health community to prescribe psychotropic drugs only as a last resort. We can revamp the prison system so that people are required to prove they've been rehabilitated (and offer the means for it as well) instead of just teaching them how to be better criminals and throwing them back into the streets.

 

[Aries]

why not make an offense with a gun more strict. A crime with a gun is life in prison. Why are you against that?

I never stated I was against that. In fact I’m not. My city is very strict on guns. But it has to be nation wide. Places like Chicago has extremely strict gun laws and most of their gun violence is from guns smuggled in from states with barely any gun laws.

Well except your ilk ARE against long prison terms for violent offenders. In California they created a law that says you get 10 years added to your sentence if you use a firearm, The Governor and the liberal Legislature just got rid of that cause it was to "harsh".

I don't understand why you would give a person added time just because a firearm is used.

Some of the more idiotic laws are that if you and a fellow poster agree to meet up and beat the beans out of each other, one of you could become a felon if the cops check your trunk and find a weapon. The weapon need not be a part of the mutual physical contact.

So, if I run over you with a car or beat you to death, that should net me less time in prison?

What's the real objective?

The way to stop the use of firearms in crime is to PUNISH those that use them not take them away from law abiding citizens. Why would you take a weapon away from someone that has never committed a crime?

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

 

[Aries]

Guns are the target because they are inanimate objects that we can control. We can’t control psychos who want to go out and murder people but I can gaurentee you they will kill a lot less people if they can’t get their hands on a semi automatic weapon. A maniac with a knife does a lot less damage than a maniac shooting 800 rounds per second.

Isn't it odd that we COULD control "psychos" for years and then lost control of them because "advocates" started using the Habeus Corpus laws to get the "psychos" released so they could wander about and sleep on street corner instead of living in asylums and receiving treatment.

The mental health of a human is much more complex than your generalized statements.

When people who were considered dangers to themselves and others could be involuntarily committed by their families, we didn't have as many such incidents, even though firearm laws were much more lax than they are today.

we also had many women who were wrongfully institutionalized by their husbands or fathers against their wills.....

Perhaps back in the 19th Century, but less and less in the 20th Century. You're certainly working hard to try to frame the argument that I should be deprived of my rights even though I've committed no act that would warrant such behavior.

I’ve never once implied that.
Although you are reminiscing on days my gender was thrown in the nut house for no reason.
It happen to my grandmother and it was 20th century.

 

[Humorme]

I never stated I was against that. In fact I’m not. My city is very strict on guns. But it has to be nation wide. Places like Chicago has extremely strict gun laws and most of their gun violence is from guns smuggled in from states with barely any gun laws.

Well except your ilk ARE against long prison terms for violent offenders. In California they created a law that says you get 10 years added to your sentence if you use a firearm, The Governor and the liberal Legislature just got rid of that cause it was to "harsh".

I don't understand why you would give a person added time just because a firearm is used.

Some of the more idiotic laws are that if you and a fellow poster agree to meet up and beat the beans out of each other, one of you could become a felon if the cops check your trunk and find a weapon. The weapon need not be a part of the mutual physical contact.

So, if I run over you with a car or beat you to death, that should net me less time in prison?

What's the real objective?

The way to stop the use of firearms in crime is to PUNISH those that use them not take them away from law abiding citizens. Why would you take a weapon away from someone that has never committed a crime?

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well except your ilk ARE against long prison terms for violent offenders. In California they created a law that says you get 10 years added to your sentence if you use a firearm, The Governor and the liberal Legislature just got rid of that cause it was to "harsh".

I don't understand why you would give a person added time just because a firearm is used.

Some of the more idiotic laws are that if you and a fellow poster agree to meet up and beat the beans out of each other, one of you could become a felon if the cops check your trunk and find a weapon. The weapon need not be a part of the mutual physical contact.

So, if I run over you with a car or beat you to death, that should net me less time in prison?

What's the real objective?

The way to stop the use of firearms in crime is to PUNISH those that use them not take them away from law abiding citizens. Why would you take a weapon away from someone that has never committed a crime?

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

 

[Humorme]

I don't understand why you would give a person added time just because a firearm is used.

Some of the more idiotic laws are that if you and a fellow poster agree to meet up and beat the beans out of each other, one of you could become a felon if the cops check your trunk and find a weapon. The weapon need not be a part of the mutual physical contact.

So, if I run over you with a car or beat you to death, that should net me less time in prison?

What's the real objective?

The way to stop the use of firearms in crime is to PUNISH those that use them not take them away from law abiding citizens. Why would you take a weapon away from someone that has never committed a crime?

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

Punishment is not a deterrent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The way to stop the use of firearms in crime is to PUNISH those that use them not take them away from law abiding citizens. Why would you take a weapon away from someone that has never committed a crime?

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

Punishment is not a deterrent.

One of the reasons we punish is IN FACT to provide a deterrence to some people unwilling to do the time for the crime. A violent criminal that uses firearms should be sent away for 30 years. Less likely to get out young enough to do it again.

 

[Jamesonrules]

With this recent church shooting and 26 dead the controversy regarding "gun control" comes up.
As more information about the shooter comes out the more it appears "gun control" measures weren't suffice.
So given the rise especially from the MSM clamoring for more "gun control"... what is the mechanism that would entirely eliminate ONCE and for ALL theses kinds of incidents done with "guns"?
Do the advocates for "gun control" want ALL guns confiscated? No more "gun" sales?
Explain what the ultimate solution to 100% elimination of future events like what happened in Texas on Sunday, in Las Vegas, et.al. mass "shootings" would be.

I really honestly want a dialogue as to how to 100% eradicate future mass shootings.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990
View attachment 159282

View attachment 159283

No mass shootings? No guns. Problem solved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Punishment is not a deterrent.

The evidence is sketchy at best.

A gun shooting back, or likely to shoot back is a big fucking deterrent to gun violence. That is 100% confirmed in actual, scientific experiments conducted by the military. ( no, I am not kidding. I have seen the findings. Our government actually paid money to conduct the research on a gun being a deterrent to gun violence.)

 

[healthmyths]

With this recent church shooting and 26 dead the controversy regarding "gun control" comes up.
As more information about the shooter comes out the more it appears "gun control" measures weren't suffice.
So given the rise especially from the MSM clamoring for more "gun control"... what is the mechanism that would entirely eliminate ONCE and for ALL theses kinds of incidents done with "guns"?
Do the advocates for "gun control" want ALL guns confiscated? No more "gun" sales?
Explain what the ultimate solution to 100% elimination of future events like what happened in Texas on Sunday, in Las Vegas, et.al. mass "shootings" would be.

I really honestly want a dialogue as to how to 100% eradicate future mass shootings.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990
View attachment 159282

View attachment 159283

No mass shootings? No guns. Problem solved.

There is NO problem!
The problem is not guns. It is not cars. It is not abortions.
It is the very simple issue that the MSM blow these events WAY out of proportion!
26 people shot in church. Sad and despicable YES!
But why all the coverage? Why continually making a BIG deal out of 26 people dying in less then 26 minutes when during that same day
109 people were killed in car accidents and 2,464 babies murdered! Where is the perspective here?
NO what we need to do is tell the MSM enough of this blowing out of proportion these events and guess what?
Those mentally ill idiots that do this won't be doing it! They won't see their name in 15 minutes of fame! That's the cause because here is what happened in
prior days:
from this source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990
342 deaths since 1980s through 2017 37 years!
And all you people are so distraught by 342 deaths while in the meantime:
1,524,982 people killed by cars since 1980! List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia
36,649,884 abortions since 1980! Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia
PEOPLE!!!! Where is your sense of proportion???

 

[danielpalos]

The way to stop the use of firearms in crime is to PUNISH those that use them not take them away from law abiding citizens. Why would you take a weapon away from someone that has never committed a crime?

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

Punishment is not a deterrent.

Wellness of regulation should be a deterrent; we have a Second Amendment.

 

[Humorme]

Punishment is not a deterrent.

The evidence is sketchy at best.

A gun shooting back, or likely to shoot back is a big fucking deterrent to gun violence. That is 100% confirmed in actual, scientific experiments conducted by the military. ( no, I am not kidding. I have seen the findings. Our government actually paid money to conduct the research on a gun being a deterrent to gun violence.)

Someone shooting back is not punishment. An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Humorme]

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

Punishment is not a deterrent.

One of the reasons we punish is IN FACT to provide a deterrence to some people unwilling to do the time for the crime. A violent criminal that uses firearms should be sent away for 30 years. Less likely to get out young enough to do it again.

America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet. Punishment is one piece of a complex equation that most don't understand. You need the rest of the equation.

 

[Humorme]

My question was, why would punish a gun owner more than a the guy who beats people to death with their fists?

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

Punishment is not a deterrent.

Wellness of regulation should be a deterrent; we have a Second Amendment.

Another absolutely meaningless post.

 

[danielpalos]

Because guns are more lethal. If someone attacks me with their hands I have a much better survival rate then if someone shoots me. If someone robs a store unarmed it is much less dangerous than someone who robs a store at gun point.

If someone kills you, you are just as dead either way.

A better approach would be to deter criminal actions, not try to see how much punishment you can dish out.

How much punishment does deter crime, Further since they generally do not become law abiding after prison the longer we keep the violent ones in the longer we don't have murderers repeat their crimes.

Punishment is not a deterrent.

Wellness of regulation should be a deterrent; we have a Second Amendment.

Another absolutely meaningless post.

Only for the clueless and the Causeless; are you on the right wing?

Wellness of regulation should be a deterrent; we have a Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.