Rational discourse on gun control

[Divine Wind]

Can anyone explain what this has to do with universal background checks?

Stepping stones. Hillary has already vouched support for Australian-style gun laws.

Mandatory universal background checks is a requirement for gun registration. Gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.

You have not answered these questions:
Why do you think people dealing in stolen or "illegal" guns, would run background check on their customers?
How do you prove that any given transfer was required to have a background check, but did not?
Absent these things, how will your idea solve the problem you specified?

Sorry M, I've answered that already. You can chase your tail, but I'm done.

No, you haven't, and you know you haven't. You;re simply trying to avoid proving the efficacy of your idea.
Disagree? Cite the post that answers the questions.

 

[NCC1701]

...If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.

Agreed about the process and the unlikelihood of repealing or altering the Second Amendment. The anti-gun Left knows this too and that's why they prefer to chip away at it with "reasonable" gun laws than try to do exactly what they want head on; repeal the Second Amendment.

As mentioned previously, every gun control law they've passed has been a stepping stone for the next. If Obama had successfully passed his 2013 anti-gun bill, then the anti-gun left would be standing on it to add more "reasonable" laws such as "If a limit of 10-round magazines is good, why not limit them to 5 rounds?"

You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.

he did not make an empirical conclusion

What I mean is, you can't prove any evidence that IF Obama's legislation had passed, that anything you predict would have come about. Don't hold me to one level of proof and then go spinning off into LaLa Land for your own arguments.

we use past behavior, which is hard to quantify yet it exists

for instance the war on poverty. Johnson and liberals said they going to end poverty in America, here we are after multiple tax increases and spending increases yet the left is STILL whining about poverty. It never ends, it is a one way ratchet

 

[dannyboys]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Using any data from inner cities is irrelevant in the broader context of gun possession nation wide.
Inner cities are where stolen guns go.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns spread across the country. 99.9999% of these guns will never be used illegally.
Inner cities are magnets for stolen guns.
Very very few ordinary honest law abiding people are going to buy any gun that they know is stolen.
The VAST majority of people in possession of a stolen gun are inner city negro thugs, or as Hillary calls them "Super Predators".

 

[OldLady]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Using any data from inner cities is irrelevant in the broader context of gun possession nation wide.
Inner cities are where stolen guns go.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns spread across the country. 99.9999% of these guns will never be used illegally.
Inner cities are magnets for stolen guns.
Very very few ordinary honest law abiding people are going to buy any gun that they know is stolen.
The VAST majority of people in possession of a stolen gun are inner city negro thugs, or as Hillary calls them "Super Predators".

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

 

[NCC1701]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Using any data from inner cities is irrelevant in the broader context of gun possession nation wide.
Inner cities are where stolen guns go.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns spread across the country. 99.9999% of these guns will never be used illegally.
Inner cities are magnets for stolen guns.
Very very few ordinary honest law abiding people are going to buy any gun that they know is stolen.
The VAST majority of people in possession of a stolen gun are inner city negro thugs, or as Hillary calls them "Super Predators".

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

What if blacks are not fixable as humans? They behave like this all over the world

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

Its funny that you think you can limit people who are unable to legally own a gun, legal or otherwise, from getting an illegal gun when these guns are sold illegally.
Your inability to explain how universal background checks will do anything in this regard excludes your idea from rational discourse.

 

[OldLady]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Using any data from inner cities is irrelevant in the broader context of gun possession nation wide.
Inner cities are where stolen guns go.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns spread across the country. 99.9999% of these guns will never be used illegally.
Inner cities are magnets for stolen guns.
Very very few ordinary honest law abiding people are going to buy any gun that they know is stolen.
The VAST majority of people in possession of a stolen gun are inner city negro thugs, or as Hillary calls them "Super Predators".

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

What if blacks are not fixable as humans? They behave like this all over the world

Gangs all over the world act like this--see Mexico. It's not about race. The organized crime that sprang up and flourished during Prohibition? White. Lotsa guns and violence. There are people who look at opportunities to get rich whether it's legal or not. There are people who are willing to take the risk on an illegal "job" like moving illegal alcohol or drugs because there aren't other jobs available to them. It's all pretty complicated, but it is not because they are black.

 

[OldLady]

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

Its funny that you think you can limit people who are unable to legally own a gun, legal or otherwise, from getting an illegal gun when these guns are sold illegally.
Your inability to explain how universal background checks will do anything in this regard excludes your idea from rational discourse.

We can't completely stop murder or assault, so we should just throw up our hands and make it legal?

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of war on our streets as irresponsible.

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

 

[NCC1701]

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Using any data from inner cities is irrelevant in the broader context of gun possession nation wide.
Inner cities are where stolen guns go.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns spread across the country. 99.9999% of these guns will never be used illegally.
Inner cities are magnets for stolen guns.
Very very few ordinary honest law abiding people are going to buy any gun that they know is stolen.
The VAST majority of people in possession of a stolen gun are inner city negro thugs, or as Hillary calls them "Super Predators".

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

What if blacks are not fixable as humans? They behave like this all over the world

Gangs all over the world act like this--see Mexico. It's not about race. The organized crime that sprang up and flourished during Prohibition? White. Lotsa guns and violence. There are people who look at opportunities to get rich whether it's legal or not. There are people who are willing to take the risk on an illegal "job" like moving illegal alcohol or drugs because there aren't other jobs available to them. It's all pretty complicated, but it is not because they are black.

Mexicans can do it too, so it pretty much is about race. The jobs thing is a whole other thread, but look at just gun laws and murder rates.

Wiki the list of countries by intentional homicide rate. Sub-sahara Africa is high across the board, Europe is low. The white intentionl homicide rate in the US is about 2 per 100,000 which is right in line with Europe. The black homicide rate is about 12 per 100,000 which is just like Africa, see a pattern?

Look at one country in Africa that liberals boast about and their wonderful gun control- Botswana. They are giddy at 2.98 per 100000 gun homicide rate which is greater than the US white overall homicide rate.

Why Americans should go live in Botswana; 7 African nations with more sensible gun control laws than the US

ok now read this

25 Countries With The Highest Murder Rates In The World


I hope you saw #2 on that list, Botswana with a 18 per 100,000 murder rate, there is even a travel warning. So how could a liberal gun control nirvana have a travel warning? It is because of the lie that only gun homicide rate matters. The blacks simply found other ways to kill, or somebody is lying, you pick. The fact is the murder rate was not really affected by gun control. There is no evidence that what you say works.

 

[NCC1701]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of wart on our streets as irresponsible.

no evidence that taking them from us makes the streets safer. it is actually easy to get assault guns in places like Britain. Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

 

[Pete7469]

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

ATTENTION !!!!!

THE LAW CURRENTLY FORBIDS CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS!!! CRIMINALS IGNORE LAWS!!!! NO LAW THAT YOU CAN DREAM OF WILL BE OBEYED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER!!!!

Why that is so difficult for people to understand boggles the mind.

Lets even pretend you got exactly what you want. No one can move a gun without doing a BG check.

Criminals will either get fake ID's, or their straw buyers will simply "have their guns stolen" every couple months.

Then you'll demand every gun owner buys a $1200 gun safe and buys insurance.

The infringement never stops with you people any more than criminal behavior will stop.

 

[dannyboys]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Using any data from inner cities is irrelevant in the broader context of gun possession nation wide.
Inner cities are where stolen guns go.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns spread across the country. 99.9999% of these guns will never be used illegally.
Inner cities are magnets for stolen guns.
Very very few ordinary honest law abiding people are going to buy any gun that they know is stolen.
The VAST majority of people in possession of a stolen gun are inner city negro thugs, or as Hillary calls them "Super Predators".

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

Preventing illegal access to guns is the only answer. I agree with you.
Now for the way to do actually do it:
About 80% of guns entering the US today are coming from C. European gun manufacturers via Mexico.
These guns are being smuggled into the country via mexico along with 99.9% of the heroin originating from the M.E.
I KNOW you will NEVER understand but the way to stop inner city negro thugs/gangs from getting illegal guns is to BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!!!!!!
A truly effective WALL like Israel has WILL stop 99% of the illegal guns AND heroin from entering the country.
Cut off the illegal gun supply and the heroin flooding into the inner cities and you WILL reduce violent gun crimes dramatically.
Of course this won't stop a negro thug from attacking his neighbor with a baseball bat and stealing his fucking garbage cans but that's for another thread.

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of wart on our streets as irresponsible.

no evidence that taking them from us makes the streets safer. it is actually easy to get assault guns in places like Britain. Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

What makes a 'mass shooting' possible? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession. What type of weapon provides that capability? The semi-automatic firing system and large capacity magazines.

What makes gangs and drive by shootings so deadly to innocent bystanders? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession, and lack of marksmanship. If you were a poor marksman and wanted to ensure the death of your target and you had no regard to where all the bullets went, what type of weapon would you chose? The semi-automatic firing system and a large capacity magazine.

What type of weapons should American citizens have at their disposal? Bolt action rifles for sport, shotguns, revolvers. Weapons designed for sport, not the battlefield. Some weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias, some weapons belong in the hands of sportsmen.

 

[2aguy]

How could it be a "tax" if it were free? I would be 100% behind such a suggestion. I have nothing against Voter ID. However, households living in real poverty and on welfare benefits can't free up $90 or $100; their budgets are too tight.

Conversely, jacking up the price of guns, permits and other LW legal hoops deprives those poor families of the right to both bear arms and to self-defense. They're totally at the mercy of illegally armed gang-bangers and an underfunded, slow-to-respond police force.

As for vote ID, to avoid it being a backdoor poll tax, all voter registration cards should have a picture. With digital technology, it should be both cheap and fast.....and the cost borne by American taxpayers.

And in fact it is free.....they can't charge you for i.d. you will use to vote.

 

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of wart on our streets as irresponsible.

no evidence that taking them from us makes the streets safer. it is actually easy to get assault guns in places like Britain. Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

What makes a 'mass shooting' possible? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession. What type of weapon provides that capability? The semi-automatic firing system and large capacity magazines.

What makes gangs and drive by shootings so deadly to innocent bystanders? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession, and lack of marksmanship. If you were a poor marksman and wanted to ensure the death of your target and you had no regard to where all the bullets went, what type of weapon would you chose? The semi-automatic firing system and a large capacity magazine.

What type of weapons should American citizens have at their disposal? Bolt action rifles for sport, shotguns, revolvers. Weapons designed for sport, not the battlefield. Some weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias, some weapons belong in the hands of sportsmen.

You are wrong....actual research into magazine capacity and kill rate in mass shootings shows you are wrong...shooters could achieve the same kill rate with revolvers and shotguns....

A law abiding civilian has a legitimate self defense need for magazine fed weapons with a large number of bullets...they will usually be alone, against one or more armed attackers, they may be injured, so changing a magazine is difficult, and a magazine with a large number of bullets allows them to fight back without having to worry about changing the magazine under pressure and under attack....

Criminals will get any magazine they want...

Mass shooters can use 10 round magazines or revolvers and kill just as many people....since they target gun free zones, and no one can shoot back.....thanks to you guys....

 

[2aguy]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.

Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.

Yeah.....but you can't stop that.......criminals steal things....even guns....in France...they have absolutely every gun law you want, and have completely banned and made illegal, fully automatic weapons.......and criminals get fully automatic weapons easily in France......

Catch them, lock them up...that is how you reduce gun crime.....you don't reduce it by focusing on normal gun owners...

 

[2aguy]

What background check will the criminal that stole my gun go through?

If you report the gun stolen, it is no longer your responsibility.

Again, NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Last time I looked, I don't have to do things the way you would do it nor am I wrong if I don't.

You still haven't answered what background check a criminal will go through that stole my gun.

I've had Christmas, Halloween, and Easter decorations stolen or vandalized from or in my yard. Should I report all of them?

I have never heard of a light up Santa killing anyone. You must live in a nasty neighborhood.

I kind of like your reply here. "It's none of your fucking business." Gee, what a rock solid answer to a straightforward question. I'm going to use it anytime I haven't got an answer.

I have patiently read your comments, you have not one shred of empirical evidence that anything you say lowers the murder rate

How does anyone provide empirical evidence for an initiative that hasn't been tried? If you want to see empirical evidence for gun control generally, take a look at gun death rates in civilized nations with real gun control compared to ours.

Sorry....you can't compare them....Britain had a low gun murder rate before they confiscated their guns......and after they banned and confiscated their guns...you know...enacting everything you want plus banning them and making them illegal...completely illegal....their gun crime rate did not change.........in fact...it went up for years after the ban...then went back to the origina point...

now....gun crime in Britain is up 4%.......and fully automatic weapons and other guns are flooding their streets.....

Nothing you believe about guns is accurate....

France did everything you want.....they also had a lower gun murder rate than we do......before they banned guns.....and their criminals get guns easily....you have seen the links to French police....I have posted them for you before......