The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Rigby5]

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.

That is just a total lie.
ARs are responsible for less than 100 deaths a year.
Almost all the gun deaths are from pistols, like 99%.
And almost all these deaths actually are due to the War on Drugs, that prevents the use of banks or the police, and causes large sums of cash to accumulate.

Since so few guns are used in crimes, it is impossible to reduce the number of guns in the hand of criminals, by passing more laws that will only effect the honest people.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I can get get an 80% unfinished AR lower for $40.
A finished one is more like $180.
And I don't like being on lists.
An 80% unfinished is not on any list.

 

[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.

Easy to answer.
Go back the the Revolutionary war, and the most massive weapons were cannon.
And who owned all the cannon in the revolutionary war?
It was private individuals.

Private individuals are ALWAYS more trustworthy than public figures because public figures are always working for pay.
That is why the founders were strongly against any large, mercenary, standing military, and instead wanted citizens soldiers.
The wisdom of that is even more obvious now, after war crimes by our own military, like Shock and Awe.

Not only must all weapons the military need be available to average individuals, but it is the military we need to lock up these weapons from.

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

No, you got it wrong.

The lowering price of firearms from 1500 on is what ended the monarchies.
It is what made average individuals equal to the best trained soldiers.
The result was French and American Revolutions, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Firearms equate to democracy and individual rights.

And no, Washington had it wrong and wanted smooth bore muskets because they had a more rapid rate of fire, due to quicker reloads.

{...
Brown Bess
The "Brown Bess" muzzleloading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.[1]

Charleville musket
Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

American-made muskets
Many muskets were produced locally by various gunsmiths in the colonies, often reusing parts from other weapons. These are known as "Committee of Safety" muskets, as they were funded by the fledgling local government. Because of the need to produce as many weapons as quick as possible, and also out of fear of prosecution by the British government, many of the muskets did not bear a maker's mark. Some were simply marked as property of a state, or "US," or U:STATES," or "UNITED STATES." [2]

Long rifles
Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. Drawbacks included the low rate of fire due to the complicated reloading process, the impossibility to fit it with a bayonet, the high cost, and lack of standardization that required extensive training with a particular rifle for a soldier to realize the weapon's full potential. Due to the drawbacks, George Washington argued for a limited role of rifles in the Colonial military, while Congress was more enthusiastic and authorized the raising of several companies of riflemen.[4] Long rifles played a significant part in the battles of Saratoga and New Orleans, where rifle units picked off officers to disrupt British command and control, but required support by units armed with smoothbore muskets or by artillery to prevent the riflemen from being overrun.
...}

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

Most of the Revolutionary war was won with captured muskets or domestic Kentucky Long Rifles make and owned by civilians.

Whether expensive or not, clearly the whole democratic republic is greatly enhanced by an armed population.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I can get get an 80% unfinished AR lower for $40.
A finished one is more like $180.
And I don't like being on lists.
An 80% unfinished is not on any list.

And?

If you want to build ARs as a hobby, fine.

But they'll always be available for commercial sale.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I can get get an 80% unfinished AR lower for $40.
A finished one is more like $180.
And I don't like being on lists.
An 80% unfinished is not on any list.

And?

If you want to build ARs as a hobby, fine.

But they'll always be available for commercial sale.

And? I like building mine setting it up the way I want it.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

 

[Flash]

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.

Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Libtards wouldn't know what common sense was if it was engraved on their foreheads.

Common Sense is the Democrats stopping all the minority gun violence in the big city shitholes that they control. That is where the great majority of gun crimes take place.

Instead they ignorantly bitch about the firearms that are seldom used in crime by people that don't commit the crimes.

Typical Liberals stupidity.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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

No, it is easy to disprove the claim there are not many defensive uses of firearms because we have other methods that don't require people reporting it.
We can conduct polls randomly, by telephone, or through selected groups.
We can conduct surveys at prisons, asking convicted criminals how often they were prevented by someone armed.
We can take the 1.1 million successful violent crimes each years, and extrapolate that there are about 3 to 4 failed attempts for every successful one.
We can use anecdotal experiences, such as I personally prevent a crime every 15 years or so, and would not have been able to do that unless armed.
Etc.

 

[Meister]

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.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

You, the pollsters, and the government hasn't a clue how many households has firearms. So stop with your 31% BS...because that's all it is.
Remember this......393 MILLION firearms in America. Remember that when you go knocking on a door asking for their weapons because they
couldn't get a 95% proficiency in your shooting requirement.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Wrong.
Individual rights are not up for popular vote.
The courts have already established that firearms ARE an individual right, in McDonald vs Chicago, to you can never implement any more gun control, like an assault weapons ban.
It would never hold up in court.
But you are also wrong about how many support gun rights.
It is NOT just 31%.
Many house holds that do not have firearms do so because they live in associations that do not allow it, they can't afford it yet, they are moving too much, etc.
The fact they do not all own firearms does not mean the majority do not support private firearm ownership.
Self defense is an individual right that no one can challenge.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Getting reported does not mean you did anything wrong or violated any law.
It is the people doing the reporting who are breaking the law.
The only time there is a crime is when you point or threaten.
The legal term is called Brandishing.
{...
bran·dish
(brăn′dĭsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
To wave or flourish (something, often a weapon) in a menacing, defiant, or excited way.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I can get get an 80% unfinished AR lower for $40.
A finished one is more like $180.
And I don't like being on lists.
An 80% unfinished is not on any list.

And?

If you want to build ARs as a hobby, fine.

But they'll always be available for commercial sale.

The only reason buying unfinished 80% receivers came up is that someone claimed all firearms had to be recorded, licensed, or registered.
And that is not true.
The finished firearm from an 80% unfinished receiver never needs a serial number or to be recorded or licensed in any way.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Stop the crap. Only people who did their time in the military should carry outside of hunting season.

You're kidding, right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Yep.
Now, per your speculation, demonstrate the necessary relationship between the change in Aussie gun laws and the drop in gun-related violence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There will be no Federal AWB.

The anti-gun loons disagree.

 

[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.

Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Ok, I will agree with the theory that you don't have to remove all guns, and that you just want to concentrate on the guns in the hand of the evil criminals.
But the government has never done anything about the guns in the hands of criminals, and instead has always tried to only target the least expensive, or the most popular guns in the hands of honest people.
Like the Assault Weapons Ban. That is not a weapon used by criminals at all, and is the 95% most popular of all the firearms owned by honest people.

And no, gun owners are not saying "You can't take my toys".
They are saying the world is a crazy and dangerous place, where we not only need firearms, but have had to use them to stay alive several times already.
And in a world where the BATF murdered so many people at Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., as well as the military massacring Iraqi civilians, then anyone not armed is insane and irresponsible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Sure there is - no one sells an AR configured the way I want it.

 

[Rigby5]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

Very significant because the small number of criminals only need "chump change" numbers of firearms.
The over all inventory in private hands does not at all matter.
Only the number in the hands of criminals matter, and all they need is "chump change" amounts.
So there is obviously no real practical way to achieve ANYTHING good with any gun control legislation,

 

[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!

Not a big point, but they do make .45, .48, .50, and ,58 caliber air rifles that are quite capable of bringing down deer, hogs, etc., so are quite lethal. They are expensive, but also much quieter.
Like the
Benjamin Rogue Air Rifle

 

[Rigby5]

...Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Hell, you want your assault rifle? Go ahead and keep it - once you jump through the new hoops required by new law that will eventually unfold. One per customer.

Nope, are not going to be any new gun laws.
The ex post facto concept prevents any new laws from effecting anyone, and with over 30 million assault weapons out there now, there is never going to be an Assault Weapons Ban.