The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[NoVote]

William McLaughlin, the NRA’s social media manager, is gay!!
He sits down with Tomi Lahren

And realizes what a life mistake he made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, Japan's gun control laws have reduced firearm deaths to just 10 per year with a population of 127 million people. Gun control works well in Canada and many other European nations.

Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in the nations and their lower gun violence rates.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

You cannot show this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do realize that new ones are being born everyday, right? Your utopia is pie in the sky.

Once the laws come into being and are enforced, new trouble makers that are born will most likely never get their hands on a firearm.

Japan has a population of 127 million people and only has 10 firearm deaths per year.

In Japan, it is highly important to each person to not bring shame on his or her family.

You lose.

.

When you restrict and lower the amount of guns in any population, you decrease the chances for mass shootings and the use of such weapons in committing crimes.

Utter nonsense!
There are so few crazies that want to commit mass shootings, that you can never possibly stop them by imposing even the strictest of gun laws.
Someone who wants to commit a mass murder suicide does not care how much the weapons are going to cost.
They will get them, even if they have to have them made from scratch.
Gun control is just insanely stupid and irrational.
Can never possibly work, and never has.
For example, after the 1996 shootings in Port Arthur, Australia, the gun ban passed only had 15% compliance.
That means it totally and completely failed.
Only obsolete and nonfunctioning guns were turned in.
The number of semi automatic and illegal weapons remained identical to what it was.
Except that now Australia is estimated to have about 3 times as many illegal guns, because the price went up and it became more profitable to bother smuggling them in now.

Is death by firearms in Australia down from what it was? I think so. Mission accomplished.

This is baseless speculation; absent objective, documented evidence it's nothing more than subjective opinion, completely devoid of merit.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, with that logic, we should not have any laws because supposedly the rich and famous can just circumvent them and that is not fair to the poor. Sorry, the country, society, needs laws regardless of what you think the rich are capable of.

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your faggot bitch ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

That does not even pass basic logic.
If one rational for a restriction on federal jurisdiction is listed, that in no way implies there are no millions more.
All that means is that there is sufficient justification for a block of any federal jurisdiction.
You only need one for sufficient justification.
Additional ones are not needed to be listed.
One is enough.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

This is also true with drug laws.
There is absolutely no federal jurisdicition over drugs in the constitution, so the 9th and 10th amendments then totally prohibit any federal drug laws.
Which means the federal government is already WAY out of control and excessively abusive.

you have no basic logic. our Second Amendment is express, not implied in any way.

You have it backwards.
Yes the 2nd amendment is express and not implied in anyway, but like ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment is strictly an absolute prohibition on any federal jurisdiction.
The whole point of any and all amendment of the Bill of Rights is to prevent any future federal power creep.
And the founders clearly were well aware of how governments constantly become corrupt, because the federal government has become totally and unacceptably corrupt.
Clearly any and all federal weapons laws are totally illegal.

This is about States' sovereign rights not federal jurisdiction.

 

[hjmick]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Congratulations on making yourself a laughing stock with one post. It is a rare accomplishment indeed...

 

[Rigby5]

States with stricter gun control regulations have fewer mass shootings

Since there's no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate.... so?

Actually there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide, but it is that where there are the most guns per household, like in rural America, there are less homicides.

And conversely, where there are the strictest gun control regulations, like Chicago, DC, etc., there are by far the MOST shootings.

 

[Rigby5]

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your faggot bitch ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

That does not even pass basic logic.
If one rational for a restriction on federal jurisdiction is listed, that in no way implies there are no millions more.
All that means is that there is sufficient justification for a block of any federal jurisdiction.
You only need one for sufficient justification.
Additional ones are not needed to be listed.
One is enough.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

This is also true with drug laws.
There is absolutely no federal jurisdicition over drugs in the constitution, so the 9th and 10th amendments then totally prohibit any federal drug laws.
Which means the federal government is already WAY out of control and excessively abusive.

you have no basic logic. our Second Amendment is express, not implied in any way.

You have it backwards.
Yes the 2nd amendment is express and not implied in anyway, but like ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment is strictly an absolute prohibition on any federal jurisdiction.
The whole point of any and all amendment of the Bill of Rights is to prevent any future federal power creep.
And the founders clearly were well aware of how governments constantly become corrupt, because the federal government has become totally and unacceptably corrupt.
Clearly any and all federal weapons laws are totally illegal.

This is about States' sovereign rights not federal jurisdiction.

What is about state's sovereign rights, and what rights?
If you are saying the 2nd Amendment does not restrict the jurisdiction of states to make weapons restrictions, that would be true.
It is actually only the 4th and 5th amendments that prohibit states from making weapons restrictions that infringe too much.
And the main question is about federal jurisdiction, because the gun control debate is coming up over national presidential elections.

 

[Siete]

Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

You cannot show this to be true.

you cant prove they haven't - can you.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[U2Edge]

Once the laws come into being and are enforced, new trouble makers that are born will most likely never get their hands on a firearm.

Japan has a population of 127 million people and only has 10 firearm deaths per year.

In Japan, it is highly important to each person to not bring shame on his or her family.

You lose.

.

When you restrict and lower the amount of guns in any population, you decrease the chances for mass shootings and the use of such weapons in committing crimes.

Utter nonsense!
There are so few crazies that want to commit mass shootings, that you can never possibly stop them by imposing even the strictest of gun laws.
Someone who wants to commit a mass murder suicide does not care how much the weapons are going to cost.
They will get them, even if they have to have them made from scratch.
Gun control is just insanely stupid and irrational.
Can never possibly work, and never has.
For example, after the 1996 shootings in Port Arthur, Australia, the gun ban passed only had 15% compliance.
That means it totally and completely failed.
Only obsolete and nonfunctioning guns were turned in.
The number of semi automatic and illegal weapons remained identical to what it was.
Except that now Australia is estimated to have about 3 times as many illegal guns, because the price went up and it became more profitable to bother smuggling them in now.

Is death by firearms in Australia down from what it was? I think so. Mission accomplished.

This is baseless speculation; absent objective, documented evidence it's nothing more than subjective opinion, completely devoid of merit.

Death by firearms is down in Australia from where it once was. That's a FACT.

 

[U2Edge]

States with stricter gun control regulations have fewer mass shootings

Since there's no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate.... so?

Actually there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide, but it is that where there are the most guns per household, like in rural America, there are less homicides.

And conversely, where there are the strictest gun control regulations, like Chicago, DC, etc., there are by far the MOST shootings.

That's because people in the cities can easily obtain weapons in the suburbs or countryside. You need state law or federal law to ban certain weapons or enact successful gun control.

Another factor is that cities are where most people live, so that is where the most violence takes place that could get someone killed.

Rural areas death rates are lower because fewer people live there.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm the enemy because I expressed my opinion for tighter gun control laws in attempt to bring down the huge numbers of deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the United States every year?

I don't think you understand what democracy, liberty and freedom are about if you attack another citizen for simply expressing their opinion on an issue.

No you're the enemy because your ideology is ignorant we already have gun control laws we also have motor vehicle laws that make it illegal to drive under the influence how does that work out?
Also we have laws making it illegal to sell drugs on the street.

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, it was Kleck that said 2.3 million but his partner in crime said later one after the BS was called on Kleck that it was really 1.1 mil. Either one, the math doesn't add up. I went to the store and bought a steak and did an outdoor BBQ. I did it without taking a weapon of any kind. Not one single sidearm or long gun. In all that time not one defensive shooting, no robberies, no rapes, nothing but stupid drivers. Using the Kleck and his runni9ng mate, I would have had at least a shooting in the Safeway parking lot. Or two or three. I would have had to duck and dodge all the way in and all the way out. And maybe had to duck behind a counter or two inside the store. I already posted the number per minute using the 1.1 mil. And the CDC showed the total homicides and it was a fraction of the 1.1 million. They had no way of knowing the DGU rate. It's a made up figure in your case

I let you out of the box. But it looks like you are still a foul mouthed little kid so back in the box you go.

Again not all gun defensive actions are reported to the police it's not reported if you don't discharge a cartridge. Just showing it will stop a crime from happening.

We are right back to just making up any fantasy number we want to make up. If it's not reported, it's not on the CDC report. Therefore, Kleck just must have dreamed it up. Shoot, I can dream up figures as well. How about 13 instead of 1.1 mil. Makes about as much sense for reporting purposes. And my figure is probably closer to reality. The real number will fall somewhere between 13 and 1.1 mil i would think but there is no way of verifying it. So I stand by my 13 and you can stand by your 1.1 mil. But the math makes more sense at 13.

Prove me wrong? There is no true data for showing gun stop crimes. Showing your gun to prevent crime does happen and will never be reported to the police.

It's impossible to prove a negative. You made the claim, you prove it. I showed where your background information was a lie. Both by experts and mathematically. Now it's up to you to prove your outlandish claim. Prove what you say is correct. I'll give you the 13 or more but I won't give you 1.1 mil much less 2.3 as Kleck claimed. come up with your own cites so I can fact check it. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke up everyone skirt once again.

blah blah blah that was my take away from what you said.
I deal with reality you deal with fantasy that's why you rarely hear about mass shootings or any shootings where there will be someone armed. Do you think someone armed with a knife will approach someone who has a gun?

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I see you are back to using the Klek lie as a quote once more. Do you really want to go through this again? Do the friggin math. 1.1 million times each year. Break it down to each month, then to each day. Then to each hour and finally, to each minute. The streets would be more like a bloody video game each and every time you left your fortress. Turn off the Video Game, shut off the TV, and get outside more often. Enjoy real life.

Moron....it was the CDC that said 1.1 million, Kleck's research put it at close to 2.5 million.....you are an idiot.....

No, it was Kleck that said 2.3 million but his partner in crime said later one after the BS was called on Kleck that it was really 1.1 mil. Either one, the math doesn't add up. I went to the store and bought a steak and did an outdoor BBQ. I did it without taking a weapon of any kind. Not one single sidearm or long gun. In all that time not one defensive shooting, no robberies, no rapes, nothing but stupid drivers. Using the Kleck and his runni9ng mate, I would have had at least a shooting in the Safeway parking lot. Or two or three. I would have had to duck and dodge all the way in and all the way out. And maybe had to duck behind a counter or two inside the store. I already posted the number per minute using the 1.1 mil. And the CDC showed the total homicides and it was a fraction of the 1.1 million. They had no way of knowing the DGU rate. It's a made up figure in your case

I let you out of the box. But it looks like you are still a foul mouthed little kid so back in the box you go.

Again not all gun defensive actions are reported to the police it's not reported if you don't discharge a cartridge. Just showing it will stop a crime from happening.

This is baseless speculation; absent objective, documented evidence it's nothing more than subjective opinion, completely devoid of merit.

Wrong.

The reason why there likely are more than 3 million defensive uses of firearms ever year is that surveys of convicted criminal have indicated that to be true.
And it also is fairly obvious, since over 1.1 million serious, violent, successful, crimes are reported every single year.
Clearly far more serious violent crimes are attempted than succeed.
It is actually far more than that most likely, because even most successful crimes are not reported.
For example, they say only 1 in 6 successful rapes are reported.

From anecdotal experience, I know that criminals have attempted more than 1 serious crime a years against me, and although I have never actually drawn the weapon I have a concealed carry permit for, I would not have felt safe stopping all those crimes if I had not been armed.

Absolutely EVERYONE doing any research at all has pretty much agreed with Kleck.
It is impossible to come up with any better statistic than he did.
He has been verified by Lott, Mustard, and the DOJ's own studies.

Your story is much like an old Granpa's story. Each time it's told, it just gets bigger. "And there I was".

 

[JGalt]

States with stricter gun control regulations have fewer mass shootings

Since there's no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate.... so?

Actually there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide, but it is that where there are the most guns per household, like in rural America, there are less homicides.

And conversely, where there are the strictest gun control regulations, like Chicago, DC, etc., there are by far the MOST shootings.

The majority of shootings aren't done by people who "own" guns. They are done by people who are "in possession" of one, as possessing one doesn't necessarily mean a person is legally eligible. Felons, drug dealers and drug users, street thugs, pimps, and other criminals are the real problem, not law-abiding citizens.

 

[Rustic]

The war on drugs is a big reason we have gun violence problem.

Drugs are why we have a violence problem.

No, drugs tend to make people relaxed, happy, and complacent.
It is the War on Drugs that causes murders.

Look at the statistics.

The last time we had a peak like we do now, what Prohibition of Alcohol.
And it caused a massive murder spike for the same reason.
Once you make something illegal that people do not believe should be illegal, its use increases.
There are higher profits, more sellers, etc., but they also can not use banks or call police.
So there are more turf wars, thefts, murders, etc.
The estimates are that 90% of the US murders are due to the War on Drugs.

Then by the same logic, prohibitions on firearms would also cause a spike in the rate of shootings, just as the prohibition on alcohol and drugs caused a spike in bootlegging, gang activity, and drug use and sales.

True?

Yes, most likely.
Any government imposed, arbitrary prohibition is always guaranteed to fail.
It just increases the Black Market, while destroying the credibility of the current government.
Gun control is just evil or incredibly stupid.
It can not possibly ever do any good at all.

Australia gun buyback cut gun deaths nearly in half.

UK's approach resulted in no more than 60 gun deaths per year in a population of 56 million.

Japan has only 10 gun deaths per year across 127 million people.

Norway has a 3rd of the guns per person as the US, but just 1/10th of the gun deaths.

 

[Meister]

No you're the enemy because your ideology is ignorant we already have gun control laws we also have motor vehicle laws that make it illegal to drive under the influence how does that work out?
Also we have laws making it illegal to sell drugs on the street.

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

 

[Flash]

Forty people have been shot so far in Chicago this weekend and the weekend is not over.

None of them were shot with an AR-15 or what the Moon Bats call an "assault weapon".

Chicago is controlled by the Democrats and have the strictest gun control laws in the country.

The Liberals won't do a damn thing to stop real gun violence in the big city shitholes among the minority populations. That would be racist or something. Instead they want to pass more laws even though they don't enforce the existing ones and they want to take firearms away from people that don't commit any of the crimes.

Liberals be beaucoup dinky dau.

 

[Flash]

Drugs are why we have a violence problem.

No, drugs tend to make people relaxed, happy, and complacent.
It is the War on Drugs that causes murders.

Look at the statistics.

The last time we had a peak like we do now, what Prohibition of Alcohol.
And it caused a massive murder spike for the same reason.
Once you make something illegal that people do not believe should be illegal, its use increases.
There are higher profits, more sellers, etc., but they also can not use banks or call police.
So there are more turf wars, thefts, murders, etc.
The estimates are that 90% of the US murders are due to the War on Drugs.

Then by the same logic, prohibitions on firearms would also cause a spike in the rate of shootings, just as the prohibition on alcohol and drugs caused a spike in bootlegging, gang activity, and drug use and sales.

True?

Yes, most likely.
Any government imposed, arbitrary prohibition is always guaranteed to fail.
It just increases the Black Market, while destroying the credibility of the current government.
Gun control is just evil or incredibly stupid.
It can not possibly ever do any good at all.

Australia gun buyback cut gun deaths nearly in half.

UK's approach resulted in no more than 60 gun deaths per year in a population of 56 million.

Japan has only 10 gun deaths per year across 127 million people.

Norway has a 3rd of the guns per person as the US, but just 1/10th of the gun deaths.

Nice picture of a retro A1.