Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[candycorn]

Absolutely I considered it...

So I took the time and did the research and dismissed the hypothesis as not supported by the facts.

If I put you in a warehouse with every possible weapon imaginable, all at your disposal...whatever you wanted, yours for the taking...would that make you the least bit more violent?

I live where the greatest concentration of legal gun owners reside per capita, yet, we have the lowest crime rates and lowest homicide rates.

Yet, not far away in St. Louis, where the LOWEST concentration of legal gun owners reside, they have the HIGHEST violent crime rates in the state, and the highest homicide rate in the state.

The U.K. banned handguns and severely curtailed gun rights in 1997...did that make them less homicidal?

NO!

Look and see for yourself:

Debunks your hypothesis quite succinctly.

Gun control in the U.K. had no effect.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S.

Our homicide totals are steadily dropping year after year while we EXPAND our gun rights and EXPAND our conceal carry...

Weapons ..........2007 ..........2008 ..........2009 ..........2010 ...........2011

Total ..............14,916 .......14,224 .......13,752 .......13,164 ....... 12,664
Total firearms: ..10,129 ........9,528 .........9,199 ........ 8,874 .........8,583

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Please explain how your hypothesis fits these facts.

Simple;

If you didn't put a warehouse of every type of gun imaginable in ANY neighborhood, you'd have a lot fewer deaths as YOUR statistics continue to point out. That is what they have in the UK.


We have such warehouses; they're called Dick's Sporting Goods, Gander Mountain, Cubela's, pawn shops, gun shows, etc...

We also wouldn't have some people be so proud to have reduced the rate of massacre to "only" 15,000 of our citizens.

They had them before the ban...and now they don't...and their homicide rate is the same as before the ban.

Debunks your theory totally.

Had you not totally ignored the rest of my post, you'd know that.

You keep ignoring that we have thousands more deaths than the UK and talking about some sort of "rate" of death as if that is a comfort to the families of those who are effected by the massacre.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You keep ignoring that we have thousands more deaths than the UK and talking about some sort of "rate" of death as if that is a comfort to the families of those who are effected by the massacre.

<0.0028% of the guns in the US are involved in murder each year.
Whatever point you might ever try to make here, this fact renders it noot.

Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argure from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Jarlaxle]

M14-- Is that a foul by Jaraxle? Smells like emotion. Just asking.

It's calling out your dishonesty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's one I could, maybe, support: private sale background checks. They would be done by any police/sheriff office for a reasonable fee (in the $10-25 range) or any FFL dealer for whatever fee he deems appropriate. No registration, no serial number tracking, just a simple "yes" or "no" to the sale. This would solve a problem: someone who WANTS to be sure he's not selling to a criminal, but, as it stands now, simply has no way to know.

Funny, i was under the impression that anyone could go to a dealer and request for them to handle the sale if they wanted to be sure.

 

[Brain357]

We need magazine capacity limits in this country. The only time hi capacity magazines are being used is in mass shootings. Here is a list of mass shootings using hi cap magazines:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

I have never heard of an instance where anyone needed a hi cap magazine for defense. In most cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired. So they are not needed for defense.

We don't need them for militia purposes. We don't even need a militia. The US has the most powerful military in the world by far. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A militia is not needed and will never be used.

So there is no reason to not have magazine capacity limits. They would save lives in mass shootings. The only way you can oppose this is if your pro mass shooting.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We need magazine capacity limits in this country. The only time hi capacity magazines are being used is in mass shootings. Here is a list of mass shootings using hi cap magazines:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

I have never heard of an instance where anyone needed a hi cap magazine for defense. In most cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired. So they are not needed for defense.

We don't need them for militia purposes. We don't even need a militia. The US has the most powerful military in the world by far. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A militia is not needed and will never be used.

So there is no reason to not have magazine capacity limits. They would save lives in mass shootings. The only way you can oppose this is if your pro mass shooting.

a restriction on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens

is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms

 

[Brain357]

We need magazine capacity limits in this country. The only time hi capacity magazines are being used is in mass shootings. Here is a list of mass shootings using hi cap magazines:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

I have never heard of an instance where anyone needed a hi cap magazine for defense. In most cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired. So they are not needed for defense.

We don't need them for militia purposes. We don't even need a militia. The US has the most powerful military in the world by far. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A militia is not needed and will never be used.

So there is no reason to not have magazine capacity limits. They would save lives in mass shootings. The only way you can oppose this is if your pro mass shooting.

a restriction on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens

is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms

It has been done before and there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We need magazine capacity limits in this country. The only time hi capacity magazines are being used is in mass shootings. Here is a list of mass shootings using hi cap magazines:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

I have never heard of an instance where anyone needed a hi cap magazine for defense. In most cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired. So they are not needed for defense.

We don't need them for militia purposes. We don't even need a militia. The US has the most powerful military in the world by far. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A militia is not needed and will never be used.

So there is no reason to not have magazine capacity limits. They would save lives in mass shootings. The only way you can oppose this is if your pro mass shooting.

a restriction on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens

is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms

It has been done before and there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

list them

as for magazine bans it was unconstitutional then as it would be now

plus it didnt remove any thirty round magazines

there are and there was billions of them

 

[Brain357]

a restriction on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens

is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms

It has been done before and there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

list them

as for magazine bans it was unconstitutional then as it would be now

plus it didnt remove any thirty round magazines

there are and there was billions of them

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms...

Correct it didn't remove magazines, hence why it was ineffective. Of course if it would have been kept in place it would have started being effective by now. That's just more blood on the hands of Bush. It has to be illegal to own them for it to be effective.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It has been done before and there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

list them

as for magazine bans it was unconstitutional then as it would be now

plus it didnt remove any thirty round magazines

there are and there was billions of them

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms...

Correct it didn't remove magazines, hence why it was ineffective. Of course if it would have been kept in place it would have started being effective by now. That's just more blood on the hands of Bush. It has to be illegal to own them for it to be effective.

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms

how original & dishonest calling -nuclear weapons -tanks-f 18s 2nd amendment arms

--LOL

perhaps you missed it

yet again the other day scalia was talking about rocket launchers


MACHINE GUNS FOR SALE - AUTOWEAPONS.COM

 

[Brain357]

there are already a very long list of arms citizens can't have.

list them

as for magazine bans it was unconstitutional then as it would be now

plus it didnt remove any thirty round magazines

there are and there was billions of them

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms...

Correct it didn't remove magazines, hence why it was ineffective. Of course if it would have been kept in place it would have started being effective by now. That's just more blood on the hands of Bush. It has to be illegal to own them for it to be effective.

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms

how original & dishonest calling -nuclear weapons -tanks-f 18s 2nd amendment arms

--LOL

perhaps you missed it

yet again the other day scalia was talking about rocket launchers


MACHINE GUNS FOR SALE - AUTOWEAPONS.COM

Are you saying they are not arms that the military uses?

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms...

Correct it didn't remove magazines, hence why it was ineffective. Of course if it would have been kept in place it would have started being effective by now. That's just more blood on the hands of Bush. It has to be illegal to own them for it to be effective.

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms

how original & dishonest calling -nuclear weapons -tanks-f 18s 2nd amendment arms

--LOL

perhaps you missed it

yet again the other day scalia was talking about rocket launchers


MACHINE GUNS FOR SALE - AUTOWEAPONS.COM

Are you saying they are not arms that the military uses?

no sense in continuing with your dis honesty

 

[Geaux4it]

We need magazine capacity limits in this country. The only time hi capacity magazines are being used is in mass shootings. Here is a list of mass shootings using hi cap magazines:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

I have never heard of an instance where anyone needed a hi cap magazine for defense. In most cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired. So they are not needed for defense.

We don't need them for militia purposes. We don't even need a militia. The US has the most powerful military in the world by far. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A militia is not needed and will never be used.

So there is no reason to not have magazine capacity limits. They would save lives in mass shootings. The only way you can oppose this is if your pro mass shooting.

You mean, you don't 'need' 30 round mags.

That's fine

MYOB

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

You can't buy a brand new 2013 machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade, tank, F18, nuclear arms

how original & dishonest calling -nuclear weapons -tanks-f 18s 2nd amendment arms

--LOL

perhaps you missed it

yet again the other day scalia was talking about rocket launchers


MACHINE GUNS FOR SALE - AUTOWEAPONS.COM

Are you saying they are not arms that the military uses?

no sense in continuing with your dis honesty

Your not being honest if you think a militia in 2013 could be effective without those things.

 

[Geaux4it]

Are you saying they are not arms that the military uses?

no sense in continuing with your dis honesty

Your not being honest if you think a militia in 2013 could be effective without those things.

Your assuming the military would not be on the side of the militia?

BTW- Russia didn't do so well in Afghanistan

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

no sense in continuing with your dis honesty

Your not being honest if you think a militia in 2013 could be effective without those things.

Your assuming the military would not be on the side of the militia?

BTW- Russia didn't do so well in Afghanistan

-Geaux

A militia would just get in the way of our military. It would hurt them to have to work with a militia of civilians.

 

[Geaux4it]

Your not being honest if you think a militia in 2013 could be effective without those things.

Your assuming the military would not be on the side of the militia?

BTW- Russia didn't do so well in Afghanistan

-Geaux

A militia would just get in the way of our military. It would hurt them to have to work with a militia of civilians.

No, not all military would defect. Keep in mind, there will be plenty veterans who will respond to the drum beat.

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

Your assuming the military would not be on the side of the militia?

BTW- Russia didn't do so well in Afghanistan

-Geaux

A militia would just get in the way of our military. It would hurt them to have to work with a militia of civilians.

No, not all military would defect. Keep in mind, there will be plenty veterans who will respond to the drum beat.

-Geaux

Unless they are ALL very recent veterans they would just get in the way. And since they wouldn't ALL be very recent veterans then they would hurt the military.

 

[jon_berzerk]

no sense in continuing with your dis honesty

Your not being honest if you think a militia in 2013 could be effective without those things.

Your assuming the military would not be on the side of the militia?

BTW- Russia didn't do so well in Afghanistan

-Geaux

who is to say the people would not aquire them

if all hell broke loose

 

[Geaux4it]

Your not being honest if you think a militia in 2013 could be effective without those things.

Your assuming the military would not be on the side of the militia?

BTW- Russia didn't do so well in Afghanistan

-Geaux

who is to say the people would not aquire them

if all hell broke loose

True- The weapons of the battlefield wind up in both camps.

-Geaux