The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Explain what YOU mean, because of course everyone knows the whole Bill of Rights is express and not implied?

And what is expressly said by the second amendment is that the federal government shall make not law over weapons because they are not to have any jurisdiction over them.

The Bill of Rights was created because the states did not trust a powerful federalist central force, so insisted on explicit restrictions to the federal government.

Actually, the last part of the 2nd amendment was created in 1266 as part of the Magna Carta when Kings wanted to take the short bows and daggers away from the common man to prevent armed revolts. But it would have take away their ability to defend their homes and hunt in areas that the King designated as legal for them to hunt in. Of course, the King has swords, lances, armor, long bows, etc.. Now, with that in mind, reread the last part of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

Bullshit! In my state, open carry has been the law for many years. Now, concealed carry is perfectly legal without a CCDW permit!

You'd piss yourself walking into a Walmart here! That is why no one shoots up a Walmart in this state! They don't like people shooting back!

 

[Rigby5]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

Well you could put an eye out!

We all remember "A Christmas Story" where Ralphie gets his Red Ryder bb gun.


Too bad it is considered politically incorrect these days.

But actually Lewis and Clark took a number of air rifles with them.
This were 50 caliber, with a 10 shot magazine, and could be fatal with 10 rapid fire shots.
Far more lethal than the single shot musket of the time.
But the pump that came with it had to be cycles about 1000 times in order to build up that kind of pressure.
Impressed the heck out of the natives, however.

Girandoni air rifle - Wikipedia

{...
The Girandoni air rifle was an airgun designed by Tyrolian inventor Bartholomäus Girandoni circa 1779. The weapon was also known as the Windbüchse ("wind rifle" in German). One of the rifle's more famous associations is its use on the Lewis and Clark Expedition to explore and map the western part of North America in the early 1800s.

The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. Many references to the Girandoni air rifles mention lethal combat ranges of 125 to 150 yards and some extend that range considerably. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it acceptance. It did have problems and was eventually removed from service for several reasons decades after introduction. There was also a version sold to civilians after it was removed from military service. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots, it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply.

In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break in the reservoir could make it inoperable. It was also very different from any other weapon of the time, requiring extensive training to use.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native Americantribe they encountered on the expedition.
...}

The biggest advantage is they are nearly silent.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

All of the Bill of Rights were restrictions on the government. Congratulations on finally getting something correct!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

You aren't taking into account for those who legally make their own firearms

And those legally made weapons MUST be registered with the ATF just the same as Remington or Colt. So, no, I didn't leave them out.

Who the fuck registers firearms? Libtard cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and DC. Others? Not so much! You watch too much TV!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

Well you could put an eye out!

Like I said, you would piss them off!

 

[Rigby5]

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

I think you need to do some history checking on this. Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it does. Just like the sentence structure shows you're not correct.

An Unregulated Militia is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes running around in pickle suits in the woods playing with guns.

And what is wrong with that?
But you have the word "regulated" wrong.
Regulated means practiced, so if they have become familiar with firearms by shooting them, then they are "well regulated".

The wannabes are essentially the good guys.
It is the people who do it professionally that are motivated by money and can NOT at all be trusted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

You aren't taking into account for those who legally make their own firearms

And those legally made weapons MUST be registered with the ATF just the same as Remington or Colt. So, no, I didn't leave them out.

No they don't have to be registered or the ATF notified

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

As to be expected in working order would be the correct definition used for the time the bill of rights were written

 

[Siete]

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

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

Bullshit! In my state, open carry has been the law for many years. Now, concealed carry is perfectly legal without a CCDW permit!

You'd piss yourself walking into a Walmart here! That is why no one shoots up a Walmart in this state! They don't like people shooting back!

so now a guy who wants to kill people n YOUR Walmart walks in and starts shooting the first people he sees with a weapon showing ..

safe huh -

 

[Rigby5]

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

Explain what YOU mean, because of course everyone knows the whole Bill of Rights is express and not implied?

And what is expressly said by the second amendment is that the federal government shall make not law over weapons because they are not to have any jurisdiction over them.

The Bill of Rights was created because the states did not trust a powerful federalist central force, so insisted on explicit restrictions to the federal government.

Actually, the last part of the 2nd amendment was created in 1266 as part of the Magna Carta when Kings wanted to take the short bows and daggers away from the common man to prevent armed revolts. But it would have take away their ability to defend their homes and hunt in areas that the King designated as legal for them to hunt in. Of course, the King has swords, lances, armor, long bows, etc.. Now, with that in mind, reread the last part of the 2nd amendment.

First of all, I think you have your history of the Maga Charta wrong.
{...
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"),[a] is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#cite_note-5 First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.
...}
Magna Carta - Wikipedia

This is pretty clearly saying it was the nobles who rebelled and wanted restriction on the king, in favor of the Baron nobles.
So the Magna Charta had nothing to do with peasants, hunting, or home defense.
It was all about preventing tyranny.
In contrast, the 2nd Amendment was also about peasants, hunting, and home defense, as well as preventing tyranny.

But it does not matter what the motivation for the Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights was.
No matter what, it essentially denies any federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The reason is not important, and could even change over time.
That is one of the reasons one does not put explicit motivations into legislation.
It is more adaptable as things change.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

You aren't taking into account for those who legally make their own firearms

And those legally made weapons MUST be registered with the ATF just the same as Remington or Colt. So, no, I didn't leave them out.

Who the fuck registers firearms? Libtard cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and DC. Others? Not so much! You watch too much TV!

The whole point of buying unfinished firearms like an 80% AR, is that they do not need a serial number, and do not need to be registered.

How to Build Your Own AR 15 - Legally and Unregistered - 80% L❂WERS

{...
Once you have secured your lower receiver and jig, all you need is a drill press (or hand drill), drill bits and end mills. Finishing an 80% lower can be easy and anyone with DIY skills can complete an 80% lower. To some, the thought of building your own AR 15 starting with an 80% lower may seem intimidating, but it shouldn’t. Thousands of people have finished their own 80% lowers without an issue – experts and novices, alike.

If you’re considering building more than one AR-15, consider purchasing an 80% lower & jig pack, which will include a jig and up to 5, 80% lower receivers. These packages provide an all-in-one convenience to build your own AR 15.

While it is 100% legal to complete and build your own AR 15 on an 80% lower receiver without any type of serialization or registration, one should be aware of a few facts.

• First, your firearm cannot be traced in the event it is lost or stolen.
• Second, you may be called into question about the possession of such a firearm if your vehicle or home is ever searched by law enforcement. Although 100% legal, make sure you know the law and be even more certain you can defend your right of non-registration adequately.

To start building your own unregistered AR-15 (that only YOU will know about), check out our 80% lower & jig packs, AR 15 Rifle Build Kits, and our various other AR-15 parts that will assist you with building and completion of your AR 15.
...}

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There will be no Federal AWB.

 

[westwall]

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

So, you're fine with the rich and famous being able to own guns, but the peons you think should be forced to be targets and victims.... Good to know.

I did not say there were exemptions for the rich and famous.

The rich and famous can circumvent every requirement you have put forth. So yes, in effect you are saying the rich and famous can have guns, but the poor and middle class may not. Why do you hate the poor and the middle class so much?

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.

If you are going to whine like a 6 year old i suggest you leave this Board. You're not developed enough for it.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yes, but that has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the number of firearms.
We all know what the caused of crime are, things like poverty, injustice, frustration, lack of opportunity, etc.
The number of possible weapons has NEVER been one of the factors to consider.
And the death by firearm rate was already dropping long before the Australian ban.
The fact no one turned in and working semi automatic rifles when they were banned in Australia, shows that the law and the number of weapons had nothing at all to do with it.

 

[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.

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.

No, you can not easily obtain weapons in the suburbs or countryside any more than the cities.
In fact, almost all dealers, gun shows, etc. are in the cities.
You do NOT at all need any federal or even state gun laws, because they can never work at all.
Have any federal or state laws stopped illegal drugs or alcohol during prohibition?
Of course not.
In fact, the more restrictive laws that people do not like, the more they will spend in order to deliberately thumb their nose at the obviously evil government.

It is true that cities are where most people live so there should be more murders, but cities with the most gun laws have a much higher murder rate per capita as well.
These are murder RATES, so are per capita. And clearly the red cities are much higher than the average that included the rural.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Irrelevant, because clearly the murder rate was lowest around 1902, when the number of guns per person were over twice what they are now.

We have always known what the cause of crime have been, and access to weapons has NEVER increased crime.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, gun control have never reduced crime, can never reduce crime, and has always increased crime greatly.
The only way you could legally legislate gun control in a democratic republic, is if you also disarmed police and the military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

You aren't taking into account for those who legally make their own firearms

And those legally made weapons MUST be registered with the ATF just the same as Remington or Colt. So, no, I didn't leave them out.

Who the fuck registers firearms? Libtard cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and DC. Others? Not so much! You watch too much TV!

The whole point of buying unfinished firearms like an 80% AR, is that they do not need a serial number, and do not need to be registered.

How to Build Your Own AR 15 - Legally and Unregistered - 80% L❂WERS

{...
Once you have secured your lower receiver and jig, all you need is a drill press (or hand drill), drill bits and end mills. Finishing an 80% lower can be easy and anyone with DIY skills can complete an 80% lower. To some, the thought of building your own AR 15 starting with an 80% lower may seem intimidating, but it shouldn’t. Thousands of people have finished their own 80% lowers without an issue – experts and novices, alike.

If you’re considering building more than one AR-15, consider purchasing an 80% lower & jig pack, which will include a jig and up to 5, 80% lower receivers. These packages provide an all-in-one convenience to build your own AR 15.

While it is 100% legal to complete and build your own AR 15 on an 80% lower receiver without any type of serialization or registration, one should be aware of a few facts.

• First, your firearm cannot be traced in the event it is lost or stolen.
• Second, you may be called into question about the possession of such a firearm if your vehicle or home is ever searched by law enforcement. Although 100% legal, make sure you know the law and be even more certain you can defend your right of non-registration adequately.

To start building your own unregistered AR-15 (that only YOU will know about), check out our 80% lower & jig packs, AR 15 Rifle Build Kits, and our various other AR-15 parts that will assist you with building and completion of your AR 15.
...}

Nonsense.

There's no need to build your own AR except as an avocation.

 

[Rigby5]

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".

All statistics indicate that gun control would greatly increase rapes, robberies, and murders.
Are you telling me you do not know some woman with a night job, like a nurse, who is safe only because she carries a little automatic in her purse?

The whole idea of gun control is just totally against the whole principle of a democratic republic.
Gun control equal tyranny, always has, and always will.