What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[2aguy]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem.

I think most suicides are "mentally ill" things

Suicides occur with or without guns.

Homicides, on the other hand, are much lower in developed countries which have banned guns.

It's a lot easier to gas yourself with your oven than it is to gas someone else. It's a lot easier to swallow a lot of pills yourself than it is to make someone else swallow them. It's a lot easier to jump off a roof yourself than it is to throw someone else off the roof.

Wrong.....gun murder was low in those countries long before they banned guns...guns did not cause murder...and banning guns did not lower their gun crime or murder rate...it stayed the same......Britain is the classic example....gun mirdered stayed the same after they confiscated guns and in Britain and Australia the gun crime rate is going up......

And countries that keep guns from citizens...Russia and Mexico....vastly higher gun murder rates.....

 

[2aguy]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem.

I think most suicides are "mentally ill" things

Suicides occur with or without guns.

Homicides, on the other hand, are much lower in developed countries which have banned guns.

It's a lot easier to gas yourself with your oven than it is to gas someone else. It's a lot easier to swallow a lot of pills yourself than it is to make someone else swallow them. It's a lot easier to jump off a roof yourself than it is to throw someone else off the roof.

While that stat is true, it doesn't address cause and effect. It doesn't support the argument that making guns more illegal in countries that have them reduces murders. And how many countries that have banned guns have open borders like we do and huge drug trafficking where dealers can sell too and an installed base of almost as many guns as people?

Our homicide rate is not "because Mexicans".

No...it is because blacks in inner cities who have been raised generation after generation by single teen mothers......who murder each other over insults on Facebook.....

Japanese criminals...don't commit murder...it is not a cultural practice.....the Yakuza bosses want to make money...not kill each other...but when they do go to war....like they did in the 80s and in 2006 ( lasted 7 years)..... They use guns and grenades......a lot of guns and grenades....

 

[2aguy]

Most guns deaths are suicides.

Nobody's gonna say "gee, I can't get a gun, I guess I'm not going to kill myself." Take out the suicides, accidents, etc., the numbers aren't anywhere near as bad as the anti-gun pants shitters would have you think. You never hear the pants shitters ever talk about the "why", only the method.

Our HOMICIDE rate is much higher than developed countries which have much stricter gun control.

That's a simple fact.

But it is not the cause......they eat more rice in Japan...so therefore they are immune to bullets....right?

There is little crime of any kind in Japan because they have a non violent, conformist, non criminal glorifying culture.........again...they don't have much of any kind of crime there........so murder is not an issue because of their culture....because when their criminals do decide to kill each other...they get all the guns and shooters they want...and they throw grenades......


Look up Malmö, Switzerland....they had a massive gang war over the summer...they were throwing Grenada and automatic rifle fire like confetti...didn't hear about it here though...did you?

 

[2aguy]

Most guns deaths are suicides.

Nobody's gonna say "gee, I can't get a gun, I guess I'm not going to kill myself." Take out the suicides, accidents, etc., the numbers aren't anywhere near as bad as the anti-gun pants shitters would have you think. You never hear the pants shitters ever talk about the "why", only the method.

Our HOMICIDE rate is much higher than developed countries which have much stricter gun control.

That's a simple fact.

How do you explain Switzerland?

Switzerland homicide rate: 0.6 per 100,000

US homicide rate: 3.8 per 100,000

Like I said. Much higher than developed countries which have much stricter gun control.

The Swiss, by law have a military, actual assault rifle in every home......and no, they do not limit ammo...they only limit military rationed ammo..........and with fully automatic rifles and pistols...they have a lower gun murder rate...why? Because they have a homogenous culture.......and murder is not an accepted practice by a minority group....until they imported foreign workers from war torn countries...

 

[2aguy]

Most guns deaths are suicides.

Nobody's gonna say "gee, I can't get a gun, I guess I'm not going to kill myself." Take out the suicides, accidents, etc., the numbers aren't anywhere near as bad as the anti-gun pants shitters would have you think. You never hear the pants shitters ever talk about the "why", only the method.

Our HOMICIDE rate is much higher than developed countries which have much stricter gun control.

That's a simple fact.

How do you explain Switzerland?

Switzerland homicide rate: 0.6 per 100,000

US homicide rate: 3.8 per 100,000

Like I said. Much higher than developed countries which have much stricter gun control.

So when I keep asking you for a cause and effect argument, are you hiding from the question, do you not know what it means, or are you still focused on brown people?

What does that have to do with my line of argument with Soggy? He attempted to throw a red herring about suicides to distract from the fact our homicide rate is higher than countries which have stricter gun control. Then he asked about Switzerland, for some weird reason. Switzerland has a much lower homicide rate than the US.

He brought up Switzerland because every home has a fully automatic rifle in it...by law......with more than enough ammo to kill 26 or more kids.....

 

[2aguy]

Race has little to do with crime......fatherless homes create killers...especially after multiple generations of young males raised by single teenage mothers...

 

[2aguy]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

You arrest and lock up people who use guns to commit crimes......we can do that with existing laws.

no need to go after people who don't break the law.....right? Just arrest those who do.....

 

[2aguy]

... the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

The vast, vast, vast majority of shootings do not take place in "gun free zones".

And mass shootings take place in locations with which the shooter is familiar. At school or at work. It has little to do with it being a gun free zone.

Wrong...I have posted exact evidence which shows that

1) most areas targeted by shooters are already gun free zones by law.......they have an emotional connection but don't have to make a decision about gun free zones...

2). Of the shooters who selected targets they had no direct connection to......and left notes or confessed to police...they all decided based on wether or not they would face defenders with guns....

- Colorado theater shooter.
- Sandy hook shooter.
- the first San Bernardino shooter.
- the recent Islamic terrorist who was Fiona to shoot up a gun free mega church
- the South Carolina church shooter.....

They all considered armed defenders and then picked gun free targets....

You are wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

... the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

The vast, vast, vast majority of shootings do not take place in "gun free zones".

And mass shootings take place in locations with which the shooter is familiar. At school or at work. It has little to do with it being a gun free zone.

The vast number of shootings in America happen in cities with extreme gun control......Chicago, D.C. And Baltimore make up almost half of the increase in gun murder since the Ferguson effect started...and they all have extreme gun control laws.

 

[2aguy]

One question, when was the last time a criminal, thug, terrorist, criminally insane individual abide by the law and subjected themselves to a government background check, or for that mater purchased the gun legally?
The problem is simple, reality seldom falls in line with theory coupled with hypothesis built upon a delicate and weak foundation.

No one wants to believe or face the fact penal reform policies are a disaster so they now focus their attention elsewhere.

The homicide rate in America plunged radically after the passage of the Brady Bill, which was the beginning of background checks. So it is clearly effective. This is not theory. It is reality.

Wrong...the Brady bill had nothing to do with it....Florida started the process of states passing concealed carry laws at the same time Brady started...and as more Americans owned and carried guns, now in every state of the Union, the gun murder rate went down...

That shows one undeniable fact.........normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun murder rate...


And that fact destroys your entire belief system and your entire reason for gun control.

 

[2aguy]

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications?

Actually it isn't. Right at the beginning of it is the conditional phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State, ...." That's a qualification before the Amendment is even voiced.

Exactly what that means is highly debatable and not the topic here, but it's a worthy one. In any case, you're not getting away with the myth, because it's right there in the document.

No...it is only debatable by anti gunners who want to ban guns...normal people can understand it just fine.

 

[2aguy]

Compulsory safety courses, severe penalties for infractions, no 'accidental discharges' of firearms.

Yes....and poll taxes and literacy tests before blacks can vote....same idea, different right.....

 

[2aguy]

So far as I know .45 is the largest commercially available caliber ammunition available. Muskets are like antique cars they would fall in an entirely different status and the rules would be unique to them.

I regularly shoot solid slugs from a 12ga Mossy shotgun with a rifled barrel and iron sights. Their diameter is .729 inches. Perfectly legal (which is more than I can say about the laws restricting bore diameters). And they resolve disputes even better than a .45.

BTW.... -50-cal-325-grain-jhp,MRI .50AE 300 Grain JHP (DEP50JHP300B), MRI .50AE 350 Grain JSP (DEP50JSP350B), MRI .50AE 300 Grain HP/XTP (DEP50HP/XTP300), Desert Eagle, .50 AE, Burnt Bronze, Desert Eagle Pistol Charm (ACCLPDE50)

I stand corrected but my main point is that there needs to be an arbitrary line between what the public and buy and what is restricted (to military, police, special groups, etc.) Where that line is drawn would depend on people making a case for or against. Does anyone really want unrestricted sales of M2 machine guns?

If a cop or soldier can carry iit as a rifle or pistol....we get it as well.....we are not serfs...they are not the ones in charge....

 

[2aguy]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

It says “militia” in the Amendment but we’re supposed to think the framers were just being generous with words that day it was written and chunked it in for shits and giggles.

The framers were very exact in how they delegated rights..all rights were for individuals....they specifically used the word people for exactly who they wanted to have that right...the people......not militias....

 

[2aguy]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

It says “militia” in the Amendment but we’re supposed to think the framers were just being generous with words that day it was written and chunked it in for shits and giggles.

It does not say the right of the militia to keep arms...it specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms....

 

[2aguy]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

Felony possession of guns.........that is the first charge dropped by prosecutors...also...judges go light on illegal criminal possession of guns...all over the country this is a problem and the actual reason we have fun mureder in our inner cities...I have posted about this numerous times with statements of police chiefs...

 

[2aguy]

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

There's nothing simple about it. We don't have to prove our innocence in this country to exercise a right. Any list can be whittled down to nothing, it's the first step in confiscation.

There's nothing simple about it. We don't have to prove our innocence in this country to exercise a right. Any list can be whittled down to nothing, it's the first step in confiscation.

You really need to seek help for your paranoia.

Tell that to the Germans in the 1920s....oh right, they were put in gas chambers in the 1930s and 40s.........

 

[2aguy]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.
So, if someone is not even rational enough to accept safety courses before taking possession of such a machine as an AK47 or an AR15, we can doubt they are rational enough to be trusted with one.

Wrong. In every way...there is no way they could have known about the Internet.....and they all grew up seeing advances in guns...so you are just wrong...and if they knew about the mass murder in Europe.......guns would not have been an option...they would have mandated a completely disarmed military and a fully armed civilian population....

 

[2aguy]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.
So, if someone is not even rational enough to accept safety courses before taking possession of such a machine as an AK47 or an AR15, we can doubt they are rational enough to be trusted with one.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

So the constitution is a living document?

No...it has a defined process for changing it.......not just because a politically appointed left wing judge doesn't like law or a right.

 

[2aguy]

Dateline 1779.

Today a crazed minute man took his loaded cannon to his child's school and killed 23 students. Using a combination of canister and solid shot (double shot) he was able to fire his cannon once before being shot himself by a passing militia man.

The hue and cry for restricting cannons to militias continues.

George Washington says we should eliminate gun free zones and people with cannons wouldn't have the two minutes needed to serve the cannon.

Thomas Jefferson thanked the militia man for his prompt action in shooting the crazed cannon shooter.

The NRA has called for everyone to have a cannon.

The mother's of the children killed want no cannons allowed anywhere.

In the beginning there was controversy about guns.

In 1920, the worst murder of school children happened...with dynamite...twit.