CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[Fair&Balanced]

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

I want it for every gun owner in America, then we can buy whatever we like. And those who can't be trusted with a fully automatic weapon can't even legally buy or posses a .38 revolver.

 

[GaryDog]

IMO anyone who has proven that they cannot be trusted in public with a weapon, should NOT be allowed in public.

PERIOD.

Nothing can be done to stop anyone from obtaining a weapon if they want one. You may make it more difficult to obtain, but there is no fool proof way to prevent anyone from obtaining a tool to increase their ability to injure others.

I will go so far as to argue that if widespread gun ownership was the government's interest, and that in order to graduate from high school everyone had to demonstrate safe and proficient handling we would have a LOT LESS criminals because they would have been thinned out generations ago because of acute victim selection failure.

WE DO NOT HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

We have a severe cultural problem. Thugs are not reviled, they're exalted. Those who do possess the means and will to combat thugs are met with suspicion and contempt within the media and pop culture. It's utter insanity but it's also a symptom of liberalism run amok.

We have BOTH a cultural problem (as evidence by our sick, irrational love of guns) AND a gun problem in this country. As usual, the answers to these problems are more complicated and nuanced than blockheaded rednecks choose to admit.

Gary, let's take a look at Chicago , as an example

which would reduce crime more.

Removing all guns from Chicago
Removing all negroes from Chicago

The answer is obvious

Why do you keep pretending that guns are the problem rather than a tool used BY the problem?

What are you saying with this ridiculously racist, strawman argument? That genocide is the answer to end violence? Is it possible there are alternatives?

Racism? Genocide?

It's not racism to point out that blacks are disproportionately responsible for crime in this country and at NO point did I suggest killing anyone.

Why lie like that?

I see, so you merely mean "relocation." Much better.

It's not racist to suggest that ALL people of color in Chicago need to be removed in order for crime to stop?

Man, no wonder Trump is doing so well. You are beyond ignorant.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

IMO anyone who has proven that they cannot be trusted in public with a weapon, should NOT be allowed in public.

PERIOD.

Nothing can be done to stop anyone from obtaining a weapon if they want one. You may make it more difficult to obtain, but there is no fool proof way to prevent anyone from obtaining a tool to increase their ability to injure others.

I will go so far as to argue that if widespread gun ownership was the government's interest, and that in order to graduate from high school everyone had to demonstrate safe and proficient handling we would have a LOT LESS criminals because they would have been thinned out generations ago because of acute victim selection failure.

WE DO NOT HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

We have a severe cultural problem. Thugs are not reviled, they're exalted. Those who do possess the means and will to combat thugs are met with suspicion and contempt within the media and pop culture. It's utter insanity but it's also a symptom of liberalism run amok.

We have BOTH a cultural problem (as evidence by our sick, irrational love of guns) AND a gun problem in this country. As usual, the answers to these problems are more complicated and nuanced than blockheaded rednecks choose to admit.

Gary, let's take a look at Chicago , as an example

which would reduce crime more.

Removing all guns from Chicago
Removing all negroes from Chicago

The answer is obvious

Why do you keep pretending that guns are the problem rather than a tool used BY the problem?

What are you saying with this ridiculously racist, strawman argument? That genocide is the answer to end violence? Is it possible there are alternatives?

Racism? Genocide?

It's not racism to point out that blacks are disproportionately responsible for crime in this country and at NO point did I suggest killing anyone.

Why lie like that?

I see, so you merely mean "relocation." Much better.

It's not racist to suggest that ALL people of color in Chicago need to be removed in order for crime to stop?

Man, no wonder Trump is doing so well. You are beyond ignorant.

Meh suggesting the removal of all negroes is no more abhorrent than suggesting the removal of all guns. Not to sane people anyway

Also, I don't support Trump.

 

[GaryDog]

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

 

[GaryDog]

IMO anyone who has proven that they cannot be trusted in public with a weapon, should NOT be allowed in public.

PERIOD.

Nothing can be done to stop anyone from obtaining a weapon if they want one. You may make it more difficult to obtain, but there is no fool proof way to prevent anyone from obtaining a tool to increase their ability to injure others.

I will go so far as to argue that if widespread gun ownership was the government's interest, and that in order to graduate from high school everyone had to demonstrate safe and proficient handling we would have a LOT LESS criminals because they would have been thinned out generations ago because of acute victim selection failure.

WE DO NOT HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

We have a severe cultural problem. Thugs are not reviled, they're exalted. Those who do possess the means and will to combat thugs are met with suspicion and contempt within the media and pop culture. It's utter insanity but it's also a symptom of liberalism run amok.

We have BOTH a cultural problem (as evidence by our sick, irrational love of guns) AND a gun problem in this country. As usual, the answers to these problems are more complicated and nuanced than blockheaded rednecks choose to admit.

Gary, let's take a look at Chicago , as an example

which would reduce crime more.

Removing all guns from Chicago
Removing all negroes from Chicago

The answer is obvious

Why do you keep pretending that guns are the problem rather than a tool used BY the problem?

What are you saying with this ridiculously racist, strawman argument? That genocide is the answer to end violence? Is it possible there are alternatives?

There are.

Put everyone caught with an illegally obtained weapon in federal prison for 25 years for one

You must be a huge tax-and-spend liberal with this proposal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

I want it for every gun owner in America, then we can buy whatever we like. And those who can't be trusted with a fully automatic weapon can't even legally buy or posses a .38 revolver.

The problem is it is illegal to own a machine gun manufactured after 1986.

So in reality while some private owners have machine guns the general public is restricted to the purchase of those already in the hands of private owners who don't usually sell them.


No one with a criminal record of any sort IMO should have a gun that's good enough for me even though I realize criminals will always be able to get guns illegally.

The only way to deal with the criminal use and possession of guns is to make those infractions of the law federal crimes with a mandatory minimum 25 year sentence

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO anyone who has proven that they cannot be trusted in public with a weapon, should NOT be allowed in public.

PERIOD.

Nothing can be done to stop anyone from obtaining a weapon if they want one. You may make it more difficult to obtain, but there is no fool proof way to prevent anyone from obtaining a tool to increase their ability to injure others.

I will go so far as to argue that if widespread gun ownership was the government's interest, and that in order to graduate from high school everyone had to demonstrate safe and proficient handling we would have a LOT LESS criminals because they would have been thinned out generations ago because of acute victim selection failure.

WE DO NOT HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

We have a severe cultural problem. Thugs are not reviled, they're exalted. Those who do possess the means and will to combat thugs are met with suspicion and contempt within the media and pop culture. It's utter insanity but it's also a symptom of liberalism run amok.

We have BOTH a cultural problem (as evidence by our sick, irrational love of guns) AND a gun problem in this country. As usual, the answers to these problems are more complicated and nuanced than blockheaded rednecks choose to admit.

Gary, let's take a look at Chicago , as an example

which would reduce crime more.

Removing all guns from Chicago
Removing all negroes from Chicago

The answer is obvious

Why do you keep pretending that guns are the problem rather than a tool used BY the problem?

What are you saying with this ridiculously racist, strawman argument? That genocide is the answer to end violence? Is it possible there are alternatives?

There are.

Put everyone caught with an illegally obtained weapon in federal prison for 25 years for one

You must be a huge tax-and-spend liberal with this proposal.

Not at all all we have to do is get rid of all the nonviolent criminals currently in federal custody and focus on keeping the violent ones locked up

 

[Fair&Balanced]

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

I want it for every gun owner in America, then we can buy whatever we like. And those who can't be trusted with a fully automatic weapon can't even legally buy or posses a .38 revolver.

The problem is it is illegal to own a machine gun manufactured after 1986.

So in reality while some private owners have machine guns the general public is restricted to the purchase of those already in the hands of private owners who don't usually sell them.


No one with a criminal record of any sort IMO should have a gun that's good enough for me even though I realize criminals will always be able to get guns illegally.

The only way to deal with the criminal use and possession of guns is to make those infractions of the law federal crimes with a mandatory minimum 25 year sentence

I agree with the mandatory, and I think it should be a stand alone crime. Meaning if you get popped for selling drugs AND you have an illegal gun on you, the state can't wrap that all up on one plea bargain and give you 2 years or something. The illegal gun in and of itself should be a mandatory sentence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can we just make crime illegal? It would solve a lot of these imaginary "gun problems"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Fewer and fewer Americans remain who are gullible and.or ignorant enough, any more, to believe this lie. Those of you on the wrong keep repeating it, along with other lies related to this issue, but all you're accomplishing, any more, is to show sane, decent, law-abiding American what lying scumbags those on your side truly are.

You like to hide behind talk of “reasonable regulations” against a right which the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing; but you're not nearly as good as you think you are at hiding your true motives and intentions. In fact, you're getting to be almost as obvious as the Ku Klux Klan was when it successfully lobbied for the first gun control laws in this nation, specifically aimed at disarming black people; or Timothy Sullivan, the violent criminal gangster-turned-politician who crafted New York's Sullivan Act, specifically to facilitate the disarming of law-abiding citizens as well as rival criminal gangs, to give his own gang an advantage. Your motives today are no better, and not much different.

Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

The real solution, of course, is to lock up hard, violent criminals, and keep them locked up, or else, in the worst cases, put them to death. Funny, but your side has generally tended to oppose this. Your side has historically tended to take the side of these criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. As with the above examples of the Ku Klux Klan, and Timothy Sullivan, I think it's pretty obvious what your true motive is behind seeking to violate the Second Amendment. You know damn well that the effect of any policies you advocate will be to disproportionately disarm law-abiding citizens, making us easier prey for the criminals that you favor.

Bravo!!!

"reasonable regulations" are Fascist code words for a de facto repeal of the 2nd Amendment

 

[Skull Pilot]

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

 

[2aguy]

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

While I'm totally against any type of weapon ban or magazine limits I don't want anyone with a criminal record to have a weapon. So if I want to buy a gun from a friend it's no big deal to me to meet him at a nearby gun shop and have a dealer involved in the loop.

Oh, my...you've proposed a proactive regulation that aims to reduced the possibility that folks who have no business getting a gun can get a gun.

Though I don't right now have an opinion about your suggestion, that it's a creative idea that addresses the matter at hand is a good thing. Concur with it or not, it's at least something positive and that can be built upon and/or used to inspire even better approaches. Innovative solution ideas are what I asked for in the OP. TY for providing one.

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

 

[2aguy]

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

I want it for every gun owner in America, then we can buy whatever we like. And those who can't be trusted with a fully automatic weapon can't even legally buy or posses a .38 revolver.

No....then no one will be able to afford the time, the expense of waiting for a hostile federal government to approve something they don't want to approve........and something there is no need for.....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Oh, my...you've proposed a proactive regulation that aims to reduced the possibility that folks who have no business getting a gun can get a gun.

Though I don't right now have an opinion about your suggestion, that it's a creative idea that addresses the matter at hand is a good thing. Concur with it or not, it's at least something positive and that can be built upon and/or used to inspire even better approaches. Innovative solution ideas are what I asked for in the OP. TY for providing one.

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

 

[2aguy]

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

Come on man, there is no reason to lie. If that dirt bag could have walked into a sportings goods store and bought a full auto, he would have. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

This is why you are going to end up losing this argument 2A, you argue emotion , rather than facts, I mean so does the left, but they going to outnumber you and out bullshit you if you don't start being honest.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

Come on man, there is no reason to lie. If that dirt bag could have walked into a sportings goods store and bought a full auto, he would have. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

This is why you are going to end up losing this argument 2A, you argue emotion , rather than facts, I mean so does the left, but they going to outnumber you and out bullshit you if you don't start being honest.

Why do you think military rifles are not fully auto and are select fire 3 round bursts?

Because a full auto shoulder fired rifle is less than practical for any use. They are wildly inaccurate and even experienced shooters have a hard time keeping the muzzle on target and they run through ammo like grease through a goose

 

[GaryDog]

We have BOTH a cultural problem (as evidence by our sick, irrational love of guns) AND a gun problem in this country. As usual, the answers to these problems are more complicated and nuanced than blockheaded rednecks choose to admit.

Gary, let's take a look at Chicago , as an example

which would reduce crime more.

Removing all guns from Chicago
Removing all negroes from Chicago

The answer is obvious

Why do you keep pretending that guns are the problem rather than a tool used BY the problem?

What are you saying with this ridiculously racist, strawman argument? That genocide is the answer to end violence? Is it possible there are alternatives?

There are.

Put everyone caught with an illegally obtained weapon in federal prison for 25 years for one

You must be a huge tax-and-spend liberal with this proposal.

Not at all all we have to do is get rid of all the nonviolent criminals currently in federal custody and focus on keeping the violent ones locked up

If we had the political clout to get that done, I'm all for it. We don't.

 

[GaryDog]

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

 

[2aguy]

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

Come on man, there is no reason to lie. If that dirt bag could have walked into a sportings goods store and bought a full auto, he would have. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

This is why you are going to end up losing this argument 2A, you argue emotion , rather than facts, I mean so does the left, but they going to outnumber you and out bullshit you if you don't start being honest.

No......there was no reason to use a fully auto weapon, and if he wanted one he would have gotten one, he had a clean background, he had the money....he was trained and he knew that fully auto fire is stupid.........anyone with training will take a semi auto over a fully automatic weapon....