Some simple questions

[Harpy Eagle]

The "cascading effect" is all in your imagination and used by the NRA as a scare tactic that makes reasonable discussion impossible.

I am against punishing innocent people for the actions of criminals.

Last weekend I was able to shoot one of these...it was a lot of fun. It belongs to my nephew. He is a 24 year old geek that just graduated with an engineering degree. He enjoys firing weapons in the same way that I enjoy golfing. His weapon use is no more a danger to others than my golfing (maybe less so with the slice I have developed). There is no reason for him to not be able to own this just because of the actions of others.

We punish the innocent far too much. In my state I have been denied buying Allegra D because I "bought it too often" and people use it to make meth. At that time I had a family of 4 all over the age of 14 that used it. A box of 20 12 hour pills does not last long with 4 people taking them. Yet we were punished for the actions of criminals. That is not the way things should be.

 

[OldLady]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

Where's that "STFU" button when you need it? "Murder Machine", bitch, please!

A chainsaw, screwdriver, hammer, machete, axe, or rototiller could all be used as a "murder machine', you ignorant quasi-Canuck! But you know what? People need tools.

What tool would you want when being charged by an alligator?

 

[OldLady]

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

That is a great plan. As soon as you get the 2nd Amendment repealed you should move forward with it.

Till then, fuck off and quit shitting on the Constitution.

Well, he asked, although in the very same question, he told me I could not answer. It's a trick you guys like to use. And from your language, I'm guessing you took me seriously. I think we should repeal the Second, but not to remove guns from everyone. There needs to be national legislation though, and there is sure no need for anyone to have an SKS in their broom closet.

...

You're turning or have turned into a bona fide conspiracy theorist.

Oh the sheer inanity of it all.

Conspiracy theorist? How so?

 

[TemplarKormac]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

How do you do that without violating the Constitution?

 

[OldLady]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

Where's that "STFU" button when you need it? "Murder Machine", bitch, please!

A chainsaw, screwdriver, sword, axe, or rototiller could all be used as a "murder machine', you ignorant quasi-Canuck! But you know what? People need tools.

What tool would you want when being charged by an alligator?

According to wikihow, you use your feet.
It's called running.

 

[Blues Man]

Laws are no deterrent against anything, neither is the promise of punishment to a determined man.

Most of these clowns have histories. Take them out of society early, and permit no reappearance.

So, why do we bother to have laws?

the laws allow you to remove the animals from society and keep them locked up

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

That is a great plan. As soon as you get the 2nd Amendment repealed you should move forward with it.

Till then, fuck off and quit shitting on the Constitution.

Well, he asked, although in the very same question, he told me I could not answer. It's a trick you guys like to use. And from your language, I'm guessing you took me seriously. I think we should repeal the Second, but not to remove guns from everyone. There needs to be national legislation though, and there is sure no need for anyone to have an SKS in their broom closet.

...

You're turning or have turned into a bona fide conspiracy theorist.

Oh the sheer inanity of it all.

Conspiracy theorist? How so?

"It's a trick you guys like to use. And from your language, I'm guessing you took me seriously."

?

 

[OldLady]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

How do you do that without violating the Constitution?

That's why I said the Second should go. It is no longer relevant and simply stops any discussion of rational gun control.

 

[Blues Man]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

So what other rights do you want to apply your need for a "Good reason" and special permits?

 

[OldLady]

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

That is a great plan. As soon as you get the 2nd Amendment repealed you should move forward with it.

Till then, fuck off and quit shitting on the Constitution.

Well, he asked, although in the very same question, he told me I could not answer. It's a trick you guys like to use. And from your language, I'm guessing you took me seriously. I think we should repeal the Second, but not to remove guns from everyone. There needs to be national legislation though, and there is sure no need for anyone to have an SKS in their broom closet.

...

You're turning or have turned into a bona fide conspiracy theorist.

Oh the sheer inanity of it all.

Conspiracy theorist? How so?

"It's a trick you guys like to use. And from your language, I'm guessing you took me seriously."

?

You asked me how to curtail your unlimited right to firearms but only if it didn't curtail your unlimited right to firearms. Great question.

 

[Blues Man]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

You do know that we already have federal gun laws don't you?

In fact when those laws were actually enforced they worked

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

 

[OldLady]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

So what other rights do you want to apply your need for a "Good reason" and special permits?

I like the reasons used in other more sensible countries--ranchers can own a rifle for shooting varmints, for instance. In Israel, you don't have to be a rancher, but you DO have to pass a psychological evaluation, and you need to do it every 7 years (iirc) when you re-up your license to own a firearm.

 

[Blues Man]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

So what other rights do you want to apply your need for a "Good reason" and special permits?

I like the reasons used in other more sensible countries--ranchers can own a rifle for shooting varmints, for instance. In Israel, you don't have to be a rancher, but you DO have to pass a psychological evaluation, and you need to do it every 7 years (iirc) when you re-up your license to own a firearm.

Feel free to move to Israel

 

[rightwinger]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

I would like to see more accountability of both guns and ammunition

Mandatory background checks on all gun sales including private sales
Registration of guns and bullets
Ban on large capacity magazines
Mandatory training and licensing

If a crime happens......I want to know where the gun came from

 

[Blues Man]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

I would like to see more accountability of both guns and ammunition

Mandatory background checks on all gun sales including private sales
Registration of guns and bullets
Ban on large capacity magazines
Mandatory training and licensing

If a crime happens......I want to know where the gun came from

It's not the gun that causes the crime it's the piece of shit criminal

Like I said we already have federal gun laws and when some people had the balls to actually enforce them they worked

 

[OldLady]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

You do know that we already have federal gun laws don't you?

In fact when those laws were actually enforced they worked

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

I have nothing against that, but these days the fact is we don't have room enough in our prisons for longer sentences for gun criminals. I think it's GREAT. We'd have to find other ways to deal with folks in prison for non violent offenses, I think, but that's certainly ONE idea. That wouldn't stop most mass shootings though, since most of them are not felons.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

Where's that "STFU" button when you need it? "Murder Machine", bitch, please!

A chainsaw, screwdriver, sword, axe, or rototiller could all be used as a "murder machine', you ignorant quasi-Canuck! But you know what? People need tools.

What tool would you want when being charged by an alligator?

According to wikihow, you use your feet.
It's called running.

I'm more the "stand and fight" type.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

You do know that we already have federal gun laws don't you?

In fact when those laws were actually enforced they worked

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

I have nothing against that, but these days the fact is we don't have room enough in our prisons for longer sentences for gun criminals. I think it's GREAT. We'd have to find other ways to deal with folks in prison for non violent offenses, I think, but that's certainly ONE idea. That wouldn't stop most mass shootings though, since most of them are not felons.

Solution: Start hanging the murderers and rapists.

(IMO, pedos too.) Oh yeah.

 

[Blues Man]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

You're right. Gun laws ARE useless unless everyone is enforcing them. That is why I advocate for national firearm laws, instead of piecemeal state by state laws.

You do know that we already have federal gun laws don't you?

In fact when those laws were actually enforced they worked

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

I have nothing against that, but these days the fact is we don't have room enough in our prisons for longer sentences for gun criminals. I think it's GREAT. We'd have to find other ways to deal with folks in prison for non violent offenses, I think, but that's certainly ONE idea. That wouldn't stop most mass shootings though, since most of them are not felons.

we have plenty of space we just lock up the wrong people

most of our prison space is going to people who commit nonviolent crimes