There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws

[Brain357]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

An M2 is a heavy weapon an AR-15 is not. I find it hilarious when you lefties immediately quote someone you loath because occasionally they say something you agree with. Mr. O'Reilly should not comment on things he knows nothing about until he can get his facts straight.

A semi auto rifle like an AR just killed 49
and injured over 50 in minutes with armed security trying to stop him. What else we need to know? They are mass killing guns.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

An M2 is a heavy weapon an AR-15 is not. I find it hilarious when you lefties immediately quote someone you loath because occasionally they say something you agree with. Mr. O'Reilly should not comment on things he knows nothing about until he can get his facts straight.

A semi auto rifle like an AR just killed 49
and injured over 50 in minutes with armed security trying to stop him. What else we need to know? They are mass killing guns.

Gee I've been using my semiautomatic rifles incorrectly all these years I guess

 

[emilynghiem]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

P@triot
What if we apply the same liberal logic used for abortion?
If you don't want one, don't get one!
Simple common sense.

PS my favorite argument is to point out the armed body guards of
people saying we don't need guns. Oh yeah? Tell that to the
storeowners in Koreatown who had to patrol using AR's so
the people and stores didn't get attacked by mob riots
while police waited and didn't respond until the next day.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

An M2 is a heavy weapon an AR-15 is not. I find it hilarious when you lefties immediately quote someone you loath because occasionally they say something you agree with. Mr. O'Reilly should not comment on things he knows nothing about until he can get his facts straight.

A semi auto rifle like an AR just killed 49
and injured over 50 in minutes with armed security trying to stop him. What else we need to know? They are mass killing guns.

I have not heard anything about armed security trying to stop the terrorist and the entire thing lasted 3 hours not minutes. Regardless a terrorist commits an Illegal act with a firearm tell me why that should effect my rights as a law abiding citizen.

 

[Brain357]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

An M2 is a heavy weapon an AR-15 is not. I find it hilarious when you lefties immediately quote someone you loath because occasionally they say something you agree with. Mr. O'Reilly should not comment on things he knows nothing about until he can get his facts straight.

A semi auto rifle like an AR just killed 49
and injured over 50 in minutes with armed security trying to stop him. What else we need to know? They are mass killing guns.

I have not heard anything about armed security trying to stop the terrorist and the entire thing lasted 3 hours not minutes. Regardless a terrorist commits an Illegal act with a firearm tell me why that should effect my rights as a law abiding citizen.

Security was an armed off duty cop. He engaged the shooter right away and was quickly backed up by more police. Most the killing took minutes. The shooter took hostages in the bathroom and the hostage situation took hours.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

if we can't get rid of gun-free zones can't we at least have guns available to someone who may be in charge such as an employee of the place. This would include teachers, security, bouncers, owners, etc, etc.

 

[Brain357]

if we can't get rid of gun-free zones can't we at least have guns available to someone who may be in charge such as an employee of the place. This would include teachers, security, bouncers, owners, etc, etc.

Many have armed security

 

[kaz]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Comparing speed limits on public roads to gun purchases which you can do anywhere and hide is the height of stupidity. Where can you drive a cop can't radar gun you?

 

[emilynghiem]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Dear Nosmo King instead of adding more controls that people don't need or don't consent to,
why not enforce the laws we have now?

Why not teach that
* that the right of people to bear arms means rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to bear arms
and teach that this means for the purpose of DEFENDING not VIOLATING the laws
* that the 2nd Amendment is not to be taken out of context with the REST of
the Bill of Rights and Constitution that protects these rights equally:
-- Right to due process and rights not to be deprived of life liberty or property without being convicted of a crime for which this loss of freedom is the lawful penalty
-- Right to assemble peacefully and securely
-- Right to equal protection of the laws
Thus, no gun rights/2nd Amendment rights can be exercised to deny/abuse/oppress
these other rights, or that becomes EQUALLY UNLAWFUL by the same Bill of Rights being invoked!

Teach THAT interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that would reduce criminal abuses and promote consistent law enforcement WITHOUT adding more laws. Let's start with that, and use that standard of law enforcement to screen out criminally ill people who can't comply with laws and can't have guns due to legal incompetence from mental/criminal illness.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Comparing speed limits on public roads to gun purchases which you can do anywhere and hide is the height of stupidity. Where can you drive a cop can't radar gun you?

Thecanalogy is apt. We accept speed limits, laws prohibiting robbing banks, laws prohibiting extortion. Yet people speed, rob banks and shake others down.

Laws do not eliminate crime, yet we agree we need laws. But because gun violence still happens in spite of gun laws, gun lovers say we should not have gun laws. Where's their common sense?

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Dear Nosmo King instead of adding more controls that people don't need or don't consent to,
why not enforce the laws we have now?

Why not teach that
* that the right of people to bear arms means rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to bear arms
and teach that this means for the purpose of DEFENDING not VIOLATING the laws
* that the 2nd Amendment is not to be taken out of context with the REST of
the Bill of Rights and Constitution that protects these rights equally:
-- Right to due process and rights not to be deprived of life liberty or property without being convicted of a crime for which this loss of freedom is the lawful penalty
-- Right to assemble peacefully and securely
-- Right to equal protection of the laws
Thus, no gun rights/2nd Amendment rights can be exercised to deny/abuse/oppress
these other rights, or that becomes EQUALLY UNLAWFUL by the same Bill of Rights being invoked!

Teach THAT interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that would reduce criminal abuses and promote consistent law enforcement WITHOUT adding more laws. Let's start with that, and use that standard of law enforcement to screen out criminally ill people who can't comply with laws and can't have guns due to legal incompetence from mental/criminal illness.

Does not being permitted to buy an assault weapon mean that your right to bear arms is not nfringed?

 

[kaz]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Comparing speed limits on public roads to gun purchases which you can do anywhere and hide is the height of stupidity. Where can you drive a cop can't radar gun you?

Thecanalogy is apt. We accept speed limits, laws prohibiting robbing banks, laws prohibiting extortion. Yet people speed, rob banks and shake others down.

Laws do not eliminate crime, yet we agree we need laws. But because gun violence still happens in spite of gun laws, gun lovers say we should not have gun laws. Where's their common sense?

Common sense is comparing apples to apples, which you failed to do. Again, speed laws can be enforced anywhere. A cop can go with a radar gun around any corner and nail you. To compare that to illegal gun sales, which are clandestine activities, is ridiculous.

Now here's a valid comparison. Pot. How's the war on drugs working for you? Any high schooler can get all the pot they want. Yet you think you're going to keep guns from criminals. You're an intellectual middle schooler

 

[emilynghiem]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Comparing speed limits on public roads to gun purchases which you can do anywhere and hide is the height of stupidity. Where can you drive a cop can't radar gun you?

Thecanalogy is apt. We accept speed limits, laws prohibiting robbing banks, laws prohibiting extortion. Yet people speed, rob banks and shake others down.

Laws do not eliminate crime, yet we agree we need laws. But because gun violence still happens in spite of gun laws, gun lovers say we should not have gun laws. Where's their common sense?

Nosmo King
They aren't saying no gun laws at all.
They are saying no to laws they don't agree to as effective and necessary.
Of course they are against the illegal sale of guns to crooks.
They just don't want poorly written laws that deprive law abiding citizens of rights
due to the criminal problems of other people they'd rather focus on, not the law abiding citizens.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws


I completely agree.

Common sense gun laws are, of course, those which have worked in the past.

So that eliminates gun bans, assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, waiting periods, background checks, and most obviously, "gun free" zones. All of them have been tried, and not one has ever reduced the number of "gun crimes".

"Gun free zones", in fact, have had the effect of concentrating mass murders within the "gun free" zone. Far more mass murders have taken place in such "gun free" zones, than outside of them, as murderers use the free-fire zones given to them as areas where they can rack up huge body counts, with no one on the scene able to stop them, and get lurid headlines after the cops finally show up and kill them.

So, what "common sense" gun laws should we have? Which ones have actually reduced murders and other gun crimes?

One is, of course, letting all law-abiding adults carry concealed weapons wherever they go. Even with everyone allowed to carry this way, most still won't bother. But a few will. And the bad guys know that there are probably a few armed individuals somewhere in the crowd in the disco or office party or school grounds they are planning to shoot up. And so the bad guys know they won't be able to kill 49 people before someone stops them, they won't get weeks of blazing headlines they want... and so, many of the potential murderers will decide not to commit their crimes there, or maybe not at all.

So often their crimes never take place. How many lives are saved, without a single shot ever being fired?

This is a "common sense" laws that clearly will save innocent lives.

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

 

[Brain357]

There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws


I completely agree.

Common sense gun laws are, of course, those which have worked in the past.

So that eliminates gun bans, assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, waiting periods, background checks, and most obviously, "gun free" zones. All of them have been tried, and not one has ever reduced the number of "gun crimes".

"Gun free zones", in fact, have had the effect of concentrating mass murders within the "gun free" zone. Far more mass murders have taken place in such "gun free" zones, than outside of them, as murderers use the free-fire zones given to them as areas where they can rack up huge body counts, with no one on the scene able to stop them, and get lurid headlines after the cops finally show up and kill them.

So, what "common sense" gun laws should we have? Which ones have actually reduced murders and other gun crimes?

One is, of course, letting all law-abiding adults carry concealed weapons wherever they go. Even with everyone allowed to carry this way, most still won't bother. But a few will. And the bad guys know that there are probably a few armed individuals somewhere in the crowd in the disco or office party or school grounds they are planning to shoot up. And so the bad guys know they won't be able to kill 49 people before someone stops them, they won't get weeks of blazing headlines they want... and so, many of the potential murderers will decide not to commit their crimes there, or maybe not at all.

So often their crimes never take place. How many lives are saved, without a single shot ever being fired?

This is a "common sense" laws that clearly will save innocent lives.

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

Gun accidents kill more than mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem. Stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gun laws are ineffective therefore we should not have gun laws.

What a nonsense argument. Speed limits. People still speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective?

Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

Nonsense! Only those who do not abide by the law speed, therefore speed limits only effect the law abiding citizen.

Who would argue that there is no need for speed limits? Who would abide drivers cruising 70 mph down Main Street?

But we agree that speed limits are common sense laws. Why doesn't that common sense also apply to weapons?

Gun laws are unconstitutional. But how can the absence of gun laws ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? How can the absence of gun laws ensure the security of a free state?

Dear Nosmo King instead of adding more controls that people don't need or don't consent to,
why not enforce the laws we have now?

Why not teach that
* that the right of people to bear arms means rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to bear arms
and teach that this means for the purpose of DEFENDING not VIOLATING the laws
* that the 2nd Amendment is not to be taken out of context with the REST of
the Bill of Rights and Constitution that protects these rights equally:
-- Right to due process and rights not to be deprived of life liberty or property without being convicted of a crime for which this loss of freedom is the lawful penalty
-- Right to assemble peacefully and securely
-- Right to equal protection of the laws
Thus, no gun rights/2nd Amendment rights can be exercised to deny/abuse/oppress
these other rights, or that becomes EQUALLY UNLAWFUL by the same Bill of Rights being invoked!

Teach THAT interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that would reduce criminal abuses and promote consistent law enforcement WITHOUT adding more laws. Let's start with that, and use that standard of law enforcement to screen out criminally ill people who can't comply with laws and can't have guns due to legal incompetence from mental/criminal illness.

Does not being permitted to buy an assault weapon mean that your right to bear arms is not nfringed?

For a law abiding citizen who intends to use the ARMORLITE rifle for defense and not "assault" or crime,
yes it is infringing on that person's lawful rights.

For the criminal who intends to abuse any weapon for criminal activity, no it is not
infringing on rights but defending the equal protection of people including the criminal.
Committing such a crime, and/or threatening to, not only violates rights of other people
but also the right of the criminal to have equal rights freedoms and privileges. Criminal
activity takes away that right, so it is for their protection as well.

It depends on the intent of the person.

Since intent cannot always be proven, even after the fact,
that is why laws are better decided by consensus so they don't overreach or underreach.
But are structured right to effectively meet the purpose.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws


I completely agree.

Common sense gun laws are, of course, those which have worked in the past.

So that eliminates gun bans, assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, waiting periods, background checks, and most obviously, "gun free" zones. All of them have been tried, and not one has ever reduced the number of "gun crimes".

"Gun free zones", in fact, have had the effect of concentrating mass murders within the "gun free" zone. Far more mass murders have taken place in such "gun free" zones, than outside of them, as murderers use the free-fire zones given to them as areas where they can rack up huge body counts, with no one on the scene able to stop them, and get lurid headlines after the cops finally show up and kill them.

So, what "common sense" gun laws should we have? Which ones have actually reduced murders and other gun crimes?

One is, of course, letting all law-abiding adults carry concealed weapons wherever they go. Even with everyone allowed to carry this way, most still won't bother. But a few will. And the bad guys know that there are probably a few armed individuals somewhere in the crowd in the disco or office party or school grounds they are planning to shoot up. And so the bad guys know they won't be able to kill 49 people before someone stops them, they won't get weeks of blazing headlines they want... and so, many of the potential murderers will decide not to commit their crimes there, or maybe not at all.

So often their crimes never take place. How many lives are saved, without a single shot ever being fired?

This is a "common sense" laws that clearly will save innocent lives.

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

Gun accidents kill more than mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem. Stupid.

Dear Brain357
Car accidents kill more people than incidents of people deliberately driving a car through crowds to kill them.

Grapes and candy accidentally choke and kill more kids than food used deliberately to kill people.

Yet the good and proper use of food is still greater than the deaths caused either accidentally or deliberately.

The argument is the good use of guns for defense is still greater
than the number of accidents or criminal abuses of guns.

Brain357 one thing we cannot measure in these stats:
how do you expect to determine the crimes DETERRED ALTOGETHER because
criminals either know or don't know who has a gun.
We can't count the number of crimes avoided because they don't happen!
So this argument will go nowhere but will always remain faith based
given the proportion of good that cannot be counted or measured, only guessed at!

 

[Brain357]

There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws


I completely agree.

Common sense gun laws are, of course, those which have worked in the past.

So that eliminates gun bans, assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, waiting periods, background checks, and most obviously, "gun free" zones. All of them have been tried, and not one has ever reduced the number of "gun crimes".

"Gun free zones", in fact, have had the effect of concentrating mass murders within the "gun free" zone. Far more mass murders have taken place in such "gun free" zones, than outside of them, as murderers use the free-fire zones given to them as areas where they can rack up huge body counts, with no one on the scene able to stop them, and get lurid headlines after the cops finally show up and kill them.

So, what "common sense" gun laws should we have? Which ones have actually reduced murders and other gun crimes?

One is, of course, letting all law-abiding adults carry concealed weapons wherever they go. Even with everyone allowed to carry this way, most still won't bother. But a few will. And the bad guys know that there are probably a few armed individuals somewhere in the crowd in the disco or office party or school grounds they are planning to shoot up. And so the bad guys know they won't be able to kill 49 people before someone stops them, they won't get weeks of blazing headlines they want... and so, many of the potential murderers will decide not to commit their crimes there, or maybe not at all.

So often their crimes never take place. How many lives are saved, without a single shot ever being fired?

This is a "common sense" laws that clearly will save innocent lives.

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

Gun accidents kill more than mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem. Stupid.

Dear Brain357
Car accidents kill more people than incidents of people deliberately driving a car through crowds to kill them.

Grapes and candy accidentally choke and kill more kids than food used deliberately to kill people.

Yet the good and proper use of food is still greater than the deaths caused either accidentally or deliberately.

The argument is the good use of guns for defense is still greater
than the number of accidents or criminal abuses of guns.

Brain357 one thing we cannot measure in these stats:
how do you expect to determine the crimes DETERRED ALTOGETHER because
criminals either know or don't know who has a gun.
We can't count the number of crimes avoided because they don't happen!
So this argument will go nowhere but will always remain faith based
given the proportion of good that cannot be counted or measured, only guessed at!

Try going without food.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws


I completely agree.

Common sense gun laws are, of course, those which have worked in the past.

So that eliminates gun bans, assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, waiting periods, background checks, and most obviously, "gun free" zones. All of them have been tried, and not one has ever reduced the number of "gun crimes".

"Gun free zones", in fact, have had the effect of concentrating mass murders within the "gun free" zone. Far more mass murders have taken place in such "gun free" zones, than outside of them, as murderers use the free-fire zones given to them as areas where they can rack up huge body counts, with no one on the scene able to stop them, and get lurid headlines after the cops finally show up and kill them.

So, what "common sense" gun laws should we have? Which ones have actually reduced murders and other gun crimes?

One is, of course, letting all law-abiding adults carry concealed weapons wherever they go. Even with everyone allowed to carry this way, most still won't bother. But a few will. And the bad guys know that there are probably a few armed individuals somewhere in the crowd in the disco or office party or school grounds they are planning to shoot up. And so the bad guys know they won't be able to kill 49 people before someone stops them, they won't get weeks of blazing headlines they want... and so, many of the potential murderers will decide not to commit their crimes there, or maybe not at all.

So often their crimes never take place. How many lives are saved, without a single shot ever being fired?

This is a "common sense" laws that clearly will save innocent lives.

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

Gun accidents kill more than mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem. Stupid.

Dear Brain357
Car accidents kill more people than incidents of people deliberately driving a car through crowds to kill them.

Grapes and candy accidentally choke and kill more kids than food used deliberately to kill people.

Yet the good and proper use of food is still greater than the deaths caused either accidentally or deliberately.

The argument is the good use of guns for defense is still greater
than the number of accidents or criminal abuses of guns.

Brain357 one thing we cannot measure in these stats:
how do you expect to determine the crimes DETERRED ALTOGETHER because
criminals either know or don't know who has a gun.
We can't count the number of crimes avoided because they don't happen!
So this argument will go nowhere but will always remain faith based
given the proportion of good that cannot be counted or measured, only guessed at!

Try going without food.

Try taking a gun away from a Texan!