Gun Control poll

[FantasticDan]

How do you feel about gun control laws?

[elysiantraveller]

Can't wait to hear the common sense laws.

[Clocker]

One option is missing from the poll. Gun control laws are ineffective because only law abiding citizens obey them, and those citizens would act the same way if there were no gun control laws.

Insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. Gun control laws clearly do not stop criminals, and it is insane to think that the solution to ineffective gun control laws is more gun control laws.

[jocko699]

You still don't get it Dan.

[FantasticDan]

One option is missing from the poll. Gun control laws are ineffective because only law abiding citizens obey them, and those citizens would act the same way if there were no gun control laws.
So.. none then?

[FantasticDan]

Can't wait to hear the common sense laws.
Any suggestions?

[elysiantraveller]

Any suggestions?

Nah. Murder rate is historically low and it's very hard to believe a debate in good faith can happen with the gun control lobby.

[Inner Dirt]

One option is missing from the poll. Gun control laws are ineffective because only law abiding citizens obey them, and those citizens would act the same way if there were no gun control laws.

Insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. Gun control laws clearly do not stop criminals, and it is insane to think that the solution to ineffective gun control laws is more gun control laws.

This.

[Clocker]

So.. none then?

You are the one that seems to think we need more laws. What common sense, constitutional gun control law would have stopped the latest school shooting?

[FantasticDan]

You are the one that seems to think we need more laws. What common sense, constitutional gun control law would have stopped the latest school shooting?21 to buy a gun?

[PaceAdvantage]

21 to buy a gun?Why not make it 40...

[FantasticDan]

Why not make it 40...
Non sequitur. One of your specialties. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Here's a hint at an effective common sense change in gun control laws:

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/09/over-98-of-mass-shootings-occurred-on-gun-free-zones-research-shows

[elysiantraveller]

21 to buy a gun?

:lol::lol::lol:

And there is case study one of why it isn't possible to have this discussion in a intellectually honest way.

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. How's that working out? The VAST majority of homicides are committed with them not the evil "assault rifle" despite the talking point about banning them.

EDIT: I will take that back the honest part. Most of the anti-gun people on here are admittedly anti-gun and would take guns away from people if permitted. I disagree but can respect that.

[FantasticDan]

:lol::lol::lol:

And there is case study one of why it isn't possible to have this discussion in a intellectually honest way.

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. How's that working out? The VAST majority of homicides are committed with them not the evil "assault rifle" despite the talking point about banning them.Would a 21 law have prevented Cruz from legally buying an AR-15, yes or no?

[PaceAdvantage]

Non sequitur. One of your specialties. :ThmbUp:Not at all...you don't have a good answer for my simple question that does a great job of exposing how silly your proposed 21 age limit is to those who can think rationally...

[PaceAdvantage]

Would a 21 law have prevented Cruz from legally buying an AR-15, yes or no?And if he was 21, what would you do next? Propose a 22yo age limit? :bang:

Now you can see why my last question to you was so important and not a non-sequitur by any means.

[FantasticDan]

Not at all...you don't have a good answer for my simple question that does a great job of exposing how silly your proposed 21 age limit is to those who can think rationally...Why is it silly? Please explain.

[JustRalph]

Why is it silly? Please explain.

Obtuse much?

[Inner Dirt]

Not at all...you don't have a good answer for my simple question that does a great job of exposing how silly your proposed 21 age limit is to those who can think rationally...

Why is it silly? Please explain.

So this recent Florida school shooting would not have happened if the shooter could not legally buy a gun?

[elysiantraveller]

Would a 21 law have prevented Cruz from legally buying an AR-15, yes or no?

Yes.

Still don't see the point. Proper reporting of violent behavior would have done the exact same.

Is this the new mother-ship talking point? A 21 year old age. That applies to handguns. Still far and away the leading murder weapon.

[FantasticDan]

Obtuse much?
Why is it obtuse? Please explain.

Please explain why the law in all 50 states doesn't believe a person is mature enough to buy alcohol until 21, yet in many states a "child" under 21 can legally purchase a long gun?

[FantasticDan]

Yes.

Still don't see the point. Proper reporting of violent behavior would have done the exact same.

Is this the new mother-ship talking point? A 21 year old age. That applies to handguns. Still far and away the leading murder weapon.But doesn't it seem like common sense to extend that age requirement to long guns?

[Inner Dirt]

Why is it obtuse? Please explain.

Please explain why the law in all 50 states doesn't believe a person is mature enough to buy alcohol until 21, yet in many states a "child" under 21 can legally purchase a long gun?

I first fired a .22 rifle when I was 7, my dad and uncle were cops who took me target shooting. I had no problem with the proper safe use of a gun at that age. I doubt any 7 year old can handle drinking alcohol.

[elysiantraveller]

But doesn't it seem like common sense to extend that age requirement to long guns?

No.

See handguns.

[Tom]

:pout:Why is it obtuse? Please explain.

Please explain why the law in all 50 states doesn't believe a person is mature enough to buy alcohol until 21, yet in many states a "child" under 21 can legally purchase a long gun?


TIme to lower the drinking age!!!

:1::8: or fight!

[jay68802]

Can't wait to hear the common sense laws.

Made by politicians no less....:lol:

[Lemon Drop Husker]

How do you feel about gun control laws?

For the most part, I'm perty good.

You?

There are more guns than people in this country. What is your suggestion for fixing the problem?

[Tom]

Besides whining about it.

[jocko699]

Besides whining about it.

And still no one is addressing the real problem:

No family structure, no moral foundation, no community involvement = a breeding ground of further mass murders whether with guns or any other weaponry.

[Clocker]

:pout:


TIme to lower the drinking age!!!

:1::8: or fight!

And make it mandatory. Get today's kids off drugs and get a few beers in them and the worlds will be a better place.

[Augenj]

How about a few quotes from Ronald Reagan which sound pragmatic and practical as I see it.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/12140-Ronald_Reagan/tag/gun-control

[chadk66]

we have regressed in this country in regards to guns. used to be nearly everyone knew how to use them and knew how to respect them. And there were morals in this country. That's all been thrown out the window. We need to have gun safety and usage classes in our school systems. Teach kids proper use, care and respect for them. When I was a freshman in high school my biology teacher had an FFL. Sold firearms on the side to supplement his teachers salary. All the guns needed to be signed for. Therefor they had to be delivered to the school. Just so happened UPS came during the period I had his class. He would run down and get them and bring them back to the class and open em up and pass them around for all to check out. And the thing that amazes me to this day is none of those damn guns jumped up and started shooting people.

[Tom]

Do do do do do do, oh yeah.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zei3xnivwFk

[Tom]

Jimi says hi!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2vmm9hGwJM

[Clocker]

Half the people replying to the poll have said that gun control laws need "common sense adjustments". Except for Dan's questioning of the age limit, none have identified any problems or proposed any improvements.

[Tom]

I tried, Clocker....a drunk can't hit shit!

[jocko699]

I wish an answer in the poll was sterilization of humans. Would that not stop all the mass killings?

[pandy]

Half the people replying to the poll have said that gun control laws need "common sense adjustments". Except for Dan's questioning of the age limit, none have identified any problems or proposed any improvements.

First of all, some of the rhetoric the media is spreading is absurd. For instance, they say that tougher gun laws hasn't helped Chicago. But Chicago's gun crimes are being committed by drug dealing gangs, not some introverted nerd who wants revenge. There's no question that better background checks would have stopped many of these creeps from buying a gun legally. Some say that they would get it illegally, let them try. You have to go into very dangerous areas and deal with dangerous people to buy something like an AR-15 illegally. And, if we had tougher penalties for people who sell guns illegally, it would be even harder to get a gun. We are way too easy on illegal gun sellers.

Tougher gun laws would not eliminate murders or these type of shootings, but they would help, and we have to save as many lives as possible.

Personally, I think that every school should have a fenced yard and metal detectors. When I go to an NFL game, no one gets inside the fencing without being checked for weapons. It's unfortunate that we have to subject children to this, but we have to, because we simply can't keep allowing this to happen. This is a crisis. Parents have to pressure school boards because the gov't isn't doing their job when it comes to these school shootings.

I grew up in a section of Brooklyn, East NY. We moved when I was ten, but even then it was getting bad. Eventually, over 1800 people were murdered in that one square mile area in one year! But then Rudy became mayor. Murders in New York went from over 3,000 to about 300 once Rudy Guiliani became mayor. You can stop criminals. But you have to have a smart plan and you have to make it tougher for them to commit crimes.

[JustRalph]

“Tougher gun laws would not eliminate murders or these type of shootings, but they would help, and we have to save as many lives as possible. “

Not true.

Its so damn easy to get illegal guns on the street because certain segments of society thrive by stealing and selling them. Contrary to what you posted, Burglars don’t wait for people to come to them. If they have a hot AR15 they will be actively pushing that fact on the street. They don’t sit around like a retailer. They move their merchandise fast. The word gets out quickly.

More gun laws only burden law abiding citizens.

[Tom]

Its so damn easy to get illegal guns on the street because certain segments of society thrive by stealing and selling them.

The 0bama administration comes to mind.......

[pandy]

“Tougher gun laws would not eliminate murders or these type of shootings, but they would help, and we have to save as many lives as possible. “

Not true.

Its so damn easy to get illegal guns on the street because certain segments of society thrive by stealing and selling them. Contrary to what you posted, Burglars don’t wait for people to come to them. If they have a hot AR15 they will be actively pushing that fact on the street. They don’t sit around like a retailer. They move their merchandise fast. The word gets out quickly.

More gun laws only burden law abiding citizens.

I disagree with you on this. Using your words, "actively pushing that fact on the street"

Many of these school shootings have been done by kids. This nut in Florida bought his AR15 when he was 18 years old. He was not a street criminal. Unless he hangs out in the hood or high crime areas, he would not even find out about the guns that are for sale illegally. Many of these shooters are living in the suburbs, or nice neighborhoods.

I grew up in one of the worst areas in the country. If you are some white nerdy kid you will probably get beat up before you get near the guy who is selling the guns. Sure, it's easy for gang members, drug dealers, and street thugs to get guns illegally. It's not that easy for a white 18 year old from the suburbs.

Furthermore, every life counts. Tougher gun laws wouldn't stop hunters or law-abiding people from owning guns, but if they cut down murders by 10%, which in turn saves several thousand lives, that's a step in the right direction. Every life counts.

The paranoia about losing our rights is a joke. We have a ton of driving restrictions and laws but we didn't lose our right to drive. Better gun laws would actually protect the second amendment and gun owners, because if these mass murders keep escalating, eventually the public will turn on the politicians and vote the Republicans or any elected official who is weak on gun crime out of office, and then the Democrats, or whoever is in power, will be forced to enact much stricter gun laws. The politicians side with the NRA now because their jobs aren't in jeopardy. But that could change.

This goes deeper than gun laws, though. There are other things that can be done, but the government in general, federal and local, has not responded to these horrific crimes. They've let us down.

[azeri98]

I don't think he could have killed as many people if he would have only had a handgun or rifle, there is no need for a citizen to have a military assault rifle, if you feel you need one of those to protect yourself, you must be very scared of something, it seems like guns are more valued than the lives of children, nothing wrong with owning a gun to protect your home and family but that can be accomplished without the use of big guns that can kill many in a short amount of time. Other countries have had mass shootings but not even close to the rate of the U.S, what is the reason for that?

[JustRalph]

I disagree with you on this. Using your words, "actively pushing that fact on the street"

Many of these school shootings have been done by kids. This nut in Florida bought his AR15 when he was 18 years old. He was not a street criminal. Unless he hangs out in the hood or high crime areas, he would not even find out about the guns that are for sale illegally. Many of these shooters are living in the suburbs, or nice neighborhoods.

I grew up in one of the worst areas in the country. If you are some white nerdy kid you will probably get beat up before you get near the guy who is selling the guns. Sure, it's easy for gang members, drug dealers, and street thugs to get guns illegally. It's not that easy for a white 18 year old from the suburbs.

I’m saying he will get the gun anyway. That white kid from the suburb can get a gun as easy as anybody else, because he has cash. That’s all that matters. I worked as a cop in SoCal and in the suburbs in Ohio. When it comes to criminal tools, cash is king. If they want a gun, they will get it. But don’t take my word for it.....I only spent 15 years taking illegal guns off the street.

Here’s an interesting note

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/02/15/reality-check-gun-permit-background-checks/

[Inner Dirt]

There's no question that better background checks would have stopped many of these creeps from buying a gun legally. Some say that they would get it illegally, let them try. You have to go into very dangerous areas and deal with dangerous people to buy something like an AR-15 illegally. And, if we had tougher penalties for people who sell guns illegally, it would be even harder to get a gun. We are way too easy on illegal gun sellers.


You are talking out your ass like the typical person who believes more gun laws equal less murders.

Here you go check this out:

http://vaguntrader.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1319841/Searchpage/1/Main/305540/Words/ar-15/Search/true/Re:_3_AR-15s#Post1319841

I could met this guy at the nearest truck stop, show him my I.D. hand him cash and have an evil AR-15 in minutes. Private party to private party sales here do not require background checks or waiting periods.

[FantasticDan]

Half the people replying to the poll have said that gun control laws need "common sense adjustments". Except for Dan's questioning of the age limit, none have identified any problems or proposed any improvements.What's amusing is that you're so annoyed by the results of the poll, that you have to call out the people who dared vote for "doing something" to be more specific, just so you can shoot it down ;) :p

Anyone could google 50 different suggestions for "common sense" gun control in 5 seconds and post them here. You would eagerly criticize and invalidate the ones you could, and ignore the ones you couldn't. So what's the point? You have no interest in "sensible" suggestions, since in your mind, none exist!

[FantasticDan]

But since you're an expert, explain to us how the background check system works. You think the current system is adequate, right?

Say I want to buy a gun from you, and you want to sell it to me. Is there a background check involved in that transaction? Does it depend on what state (geographical, not mental) I'm in?

[Clocker]

What's amusing is that you're so annoyed by the results of the poll, that you have to call out the people who dared vote for "doing something" to be more specific, just so you can shoot it down ;) :p



I am both amused and annoyed by people who ignore reality and say that gun control laws aren't working so we need more gun control laws.

To repeat, gun control laws don't work because the problem isn't guns, it's people. But we can't say that or do anything about it that, because that is politically incorrect. And that's really annoying.

[PaceAdvantage]

I dare say there were way more guns in the hands of kids back in the day...way back in the day...early 20th century stuff...

How come they never walked into school and killed a whole bunch of their classmates back then?

It was because of the guns, right? :lol::pound::puke:

[FantasticDan]

To repeat, gun control laws don't work because the problem isn't guns, it's people. But we can't say that or do anything about it that, because that is politically incorrect. And that's really annoying.Elaborate on what could or should be done about the people that would be opposed because of PC.

[Clocker]

But since you're an expert, explain to us how the background check system works. You think the current system is adequate, right?

Say I want to buy a gun from you, and you want to sell it to me. Is there a background check involved in that transaction? Does it depend on what state (geographical, not mental) I'm in?

Gun dealers are licensed by the federal government. They must do a background check through the national data base unless the state they are in issues purchase permits. No check needed if a person has a purchase permit or a carry permit.

Person to person sales are illegal across state lines. Sales within in a state are governed by state law. Some require a background check, some require that the purchaser have a purchase permit, some have no requirement.

[Inner Dirt]

But since you're an expert, explain to us how the background check system works. You think the current system is adequate, right?

Say I want to buy a gun from you, and you want to sell it to me. Is there a background check involved in that transaction? Does it depend on what state (geographical, not mental) I'm in?

It varies by state, here in Virginia private party to private party sales require no waiting periods or background checks, you just are supposed to request a valid state I.D. In California a licensed gun dealer has to broker all sales, including a background check and waiting period.

[JustRalph]

The background check system is a ruse to compile a gun registry. It’s screwed up half the time. I know several people that were denied purchases for no reason. Including one who was told "your name is too common for an accurate check”

The 2nd Amendment is a right. Do you need a background check to exercise your 1st amendment rights? Hell no. Constitutional carry and purchase should be the law. It supersedes the states. Yet our stupid court system and State legislators think they know better. Americans have the right to own-possess guns. They also have the right to do so wherever they want.

I am personally being disarmed today because I want to attend a concert. The venue restricts my rights, even with a CCW permit, to carry my weapon inside their building because they make over 51% of their revenue from alcohol. This is a law they abide by.

Even though there is tons of evidence that CCW-LTC types commit almost no crime. The legislator cooks up this law to allow lefty venues to enforce their views. This will be the last concert I attend there. I didn’t know before I bought a suite of seats.

The bottom line is bad guys will get their guns no matter what. Whether they are criminals or pissed off high school kids. If you’re motivated enough to walk into a school and kill, you will damn sure find a way to get a gun.

[horses4courses]

In California a licensed gun dealer has to broker all sales, including a background check and waiting period.

People see this as a bad thing?

[Clocker]

What's amusing is that you're so annoyed by the results of the poll, that you have to call out the people who dared vote for "doing something" to be more specific, just so you can shoot it down ;) :p



You aren't annoyed that none of those people have bothered to post here? Doesn't seem to indicate a lot of conviction or knowledge about the subject.

[FantasticDan]

Person to person sales are illegal across state lines. Sales within in a state are governed by state law. Some require a background check, some require that the purchaser have a purchase permit, some have no requirement.
Would you support a universal background check be required for all private sales?

[horses4courses]

The bottom line is bad guys will get their guns no matter what. Whether they are criminals or pissed off high school kids. If you’re motivated enough to walk into a school and kill, you will damn sure find a way to get a gun.

This I can't deny.
Shows how screwed up things are to have gotten here.

[FantasticDan]

You aren't annoyed that none of those people have bothered to post here? Doesn't seem to indicate a lot of conviction or knowledge about the subject.I think maybe those people are upset and disturbed by these mass shootings and wish "something" could be done, and that's what they're indicating with their vote. The fact that they don't necessarily know what that something is shouldn't be held against them.

[Tom]

Yeah, the old "someone" should do "something" deal.
"They" need to take of this.

Maybe we need to start a "national conversation," or "form a committee" to look into "it".

There, that was EZ.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think maybe those people are upset and disturbed by these mass shootings and wish "something" could be done, and that's what they're indicating with their vote. The fact that they don't necessarily know what that something is shouldn't be held against them.The "something" has nothing to do with guns.

Guns have been around forever. Kids had way more access to guns back in the day. Parents didn't obsess about locking up firearms in the early 20th century...way more kids were taught how to use firearms back then...way more had INTEREST in firearms back then...

Yet, was there a rash of school massacres back then with kids wielding handguns, shotguns, rifles?

There were schools back then, right? There were kids back then, right? There were guns back then, right?

It's not the guns.

[pandy]

Yeah, the old "someone" should do "something" deal.
"They" need to take of this.

Maybe we need to start a "national conversation," or "form a committee" to look into "it".

There, that was EZ.

Well, the government certainly isn't doing anything about it. I'm still amazed that more schools don't have security and metal detectors. A friend of mine told me yesterday that his New Jersey high school put in metal detectors 45 years ago. Back then it was to stop kids from carrying knives.

Even though I think tougher gun laws would help, I do think that it won't help enough and that the schools have to check for weapons. If my children were still in school, I would not be comfortable without it. This problem is only going to get worse.

It reminds me of plane hijackings in the mid 60's. 130 planes were hijacked in a four year period. I was a teenager and I couldn't believe that the airlines and gov't just let these criminals get away with it. Alll they had to do was put locks on the cockpit doors and that would have stopped most of it. And then we got 9/11. That's what happens when you let criminals get their way.

[pandy]

I’m saying he will get the gun anyway. That white kid from the suburb can get a gun as easy as anybody else, because he has cash. That’s all that matters. I worked as a cop in SoCal and in the suburbs in Ohio. When it comes to criminal tools, cash is king. If they want a gun, they will get it. But don’t take my word for it.....I only spent 15 years taking illegal guns off the street.

Here’s an interesting note

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/02/15/reality-check-gun-permit-background-checks/

That's interesting since you were a cop, and I don't doubt it's true in some areas and instances. I don't know how much an AR-15 cost on the street, but in some neighborhoods if an 18 year old white kid has $500 in his pocket and goes walking around trying to buy a gun, he probably has a better chance of getting robbed and beaten than he has of buying a gun. The only people who have cash in their pocket in those areas already have a gun, or are in a gang. I know in East New York, where I grew up, you did not walk around the street with money in your pocket.

[fast4522]

But since you're an expert, explain to us how the background check system works. You think the current system is adequate, right?

Say I want to buy a gun from you, and you want to sell it to me. Is there a background check involved in that transaction? Does it depend on what state (geographical, not mental) I'm in?

No gun control on the Federal level will occur in your lifetime, face it and the fact that in realty is that there is no wind at your back just because of this last horrible thing that happened. Soon enough something even more horrible will occur without guns, maybe not in the United States. Exactly where and when is a crap shoot to guess but not that something will. Getting a grip on young minds might seem a tough task to some, but may prove much easier than other things we will face in the next few years.

[pandy]

The background check system is a ruse to compile a gun registry. It’s screwed up half the time. I know several people that were denied purchases for no reason. Including one who was told "your name is too common for an accurate check”

The 2nd Amendment is a right. Do you need a background check to exercise your 1st amendment rights? Hell no. Constitutional carry and purchase should be the law. It supersedes the states. Yet our stupid court system and State legislators think they know better. Americans have the right to own-possess guns. They also have the right to do so wherever they want.

I am personally being disarmed today because I want to attend a concert. The venue restricts my rights, even with a CCW permit, to carry my weapon inside their building because they make over 51% of their revenue from alcohol. This is a law they abide by.

Even though there is tons of evidence that CCW-LTC types commit almost no crime. The legislator cooks up this law to allow lefty venues to enforce their views. This will be the last concert I attend there. I didn’t know before I bought a suite of seats.

The bottom line is bad guys will get their guns no matter what. Whether they are criminals or pissed off high school kids. If you’re motivated enough to walk into a school and kill, you will damn sure find a way to get a gun.

What if, say, a guy beats his wife and gives her a concussion and a few broken bones. Should he be allowed to buy a gun?

[fast4522]

JR, NO air should be given to these gun grabbers or their stupid poll.

[Clocker]

No gun control on the Federal level will occur in your lifetime

It already did, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. It expired after 10 years and was not renewed because of public opposition and because it was totally ineffective.

In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence". A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Studies_on_effectivene ss_of_the_legislation

[pandy]

No gun control on the Federal level will occur in your lifetime, face it and the fact that in realty is that there is no wind at your back just because of this last horrible thing that happened. Soon enough something even more horrible will occur without guns, maybe not in the United States. Exactly where and when is a crap shoot to guess but not that something will. Getting a grip on young minds might seem a tough task to some, but may prove much easier than other things we will face in the next few years.

Clinton did pass the assault rifle ban. I think it depends on the voters. The next time the dems get control of congress they may pass gun control.

[fast4522]

Clinton did pass the assault rifle ban. I think it depends on the voters. The next time the dems get control of congress they may pass gun control.

Think about it, you live in a state that half of the left wing is packing. The third rail is alive and charged.

[pandy]

Think about it, you live in a state that half of the left wing is packing. The third rail is alive and charged.

This poll seems like a good barometer, 50/50 split. But if children keep getting gun down in schools, that could change. Even if the gun rights advocates are correct and tougher gun laws won't help at all, once the public gets to 58% or so for tougher gun laws, then the politicians will do what they have to do to keep their jobs. I do know quite a few gun owners who still think we should have tougher gun laws, not everyone who owns a gun thinks the current laws are smart.

[Tom]

There were schools back then, right? There were kids back then, right? There were guns back then, right?

It's not the guns.

Maybe it was the guns that stopped them back then.
Everyone carried and everyone knew it.

Did we have an gun-free zones back then?

[Mulerider]

What if, say, a guy beats his wife and gives her a concussion and a few broken bones. Should he be allowed to buy a gun?

One of the questions on the ATF Form 4413 that is used when purchasing a firearm is "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"

A felony is an automatic disqualifier. I have no idea if a misdemeanor conviction is reported to NICS.

For those interested who've never purchased a firearm, here is the form that every purchaser of a new firearm from a licensed dealer must complete. Once the form is completed, the dealer phones the information to the NICS data center, where the instant background check is conducted.

ATF Form 4413 (www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)

Personally, it is my belief (and I'm about as anti-gun control as one can get), that the mass shooting phenomenon can best be addressed by expanding on Par. 11(f) regarding mental health. It has become increasingly apparent that psychotropic drugs are a causal factor in a very high percentage of these events. However, due to HIPAA laws, the reporting from prescribing physicians to NICS could be problematic.

Mule

[Tom]

Clinton did pass the assault rifle ban. I think it depends on the voters. The next time the dems get control of congress they may pass gun control.

Pandy,
We had school shootings during 0bama - and they had both houses to boot. no common sense laws were passed.

WHERE WERE NANCY and CHUCKIE back then, horsey, Dan?

WHY did the dems let the nation down by FAILING to take advantage of the power they held to pass common sense gun laws?

[Clocker]

This poll seems like a good barometer, 50/50 split. But if children keep getting gun down in schools, that could change. Even if the gun rights advocates are correct and tougher gun laws won't help at all, once the public gets to 58% or so for tougher gun laws, then the politicians will do what they have to do to keep their jobs.

You forget that the NRA owns Congress. At least that's what I keeping hearing from the Chicken Littles on the gun issue.

The fact is that when gun control is at issue, a lot of people in red states become one-issue voters, based on a candidate's stand on gun control. On the other hand, those in favor of gun control are less likely to be one-issue voters and less likely to vote against a candidate solely because of a pro-gun stance.

[pandy]

Pandy,
We had school shootings during 0bama - and they had both houses to boot. no common sense laws were passed.

WHERE WERE NANCY and CHUCKIE back then, horsey, Dan?

WHY did the dems let the nation down by FAILING to take advantage of the power they held to pass common sense gun laws?

Yep, Nancy, Reid, they didn't come through for the libs on this matter, no doubt about that, I agree with you. But, if the polls were different that would change and if children keep getting shot, the polls will change, even if tougher gun laws won't help.

[fast4522]

This poll seems like a good barometer, 50/50 split. But if children keep getting gun down in schools, that could change. Even if the gun rights advocates are correct and tougher gun laws won't help at all, once the public gets to 58% or so for tougher gun laws, then the politicians will do what they have to do to keep their jobs. I do know quite a few gun owners who still think we should have tougher gun laws, not everyone who owns a gun thinks the current laws are smart.

I think the focus will shift to higher quality education evolving into a better grasp of helping all students grow into healthy productive young people. Spotting problem students and rounding them whole instead of just tossing out clunkers. Schools that do not measure up to better standards should lose funding fast, we have to look into the mirror and see that the problem is us in our thirst for mediocre performance.

[Clocker]

I think the focus will shift to higher quality education evolving into a better grasp of helping all students grow into healthy productive young people.

Certainly not until the federal Dept. of Education is abolished.

[pandy]

I think the focus will shift to higher quality education evolving into a better grasp of helping all students grow into healthy productive young people. Spotting problem students and rounding them whole instead of just tossing out clunkers. Schools that do not measure up to better standards should lose funding fast, we have to look into the mirror and see that the problem is us in our thirst for mediocre performance.

Whatever problems are causing the violence and mental illness in society will hopefully work itself out over time. But that doesn't solve the problem now. When Guiliani took over NY, he stopped crime of all sorts in its tracks, quickly. The East NY section, one sq mile, went form 1800 murders a year to 150. There were a lot of people that thought he would fail because of the "you can't stop evil people" mentality. Crime can be stopped with good laws, good security, and law enforcement. Guiliani made it much tougher to commit and get away with crime.

[fast4522]

Whatever problems are causing the violence and mental illness in society will hopefully work itself out over time. But that doesn't solve the problem now. When Guiliani took over NY, he stopped crime of all sorts in its tracks, quickly. The East NY section, one sq mile, went form 1800 murders a year to 150. There were a lot of people that thought he would fail because of the "you can't stop evil people" mentality. Crime can be stopped with good laws, good security, and law enforcement. Guiliani made it much tougher to commit and get away with crime.



Guiliani is the one hidden gem inside team Trump, many secrets will surface because of his work and many will die with him when it is his time. Because of this I fully expect a serious backfire on the left in their strategy, not that this belongs inside this thread.

[chadk66]

all this gun control talk is election year crap. the dems have had numerous chances to pass more strict laws and haven't. it's all smoke and mirrors. the bottom line is you can pass all the laws you want and you aren't going to stop people from killing. who the hell you kidding. they dems don't even care enough about gun killings to even make a feeble attempt in chicago. so they have zero credibility. and your just as dumb as they are if you actually believe they desire to do anything. Politicians have already trampled on the second amendment enough. Any more and they're in for a big ass rude awakening.

[PaceAdvantage]

Somebody better launch a Congressional investigation into this to make sure the Ruskies aren't behind this too:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/students-to-boycott-schools-until-congress-acts-on-guns/ar-BBJfLXf

[chadk66]

Somebody better launch a Congressional investigation into this to make sure the Ruskies aren't behind this too:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/students-to-boycott-schools-until-congress-acts-on-guns/ar-BBJfLXfthis would actually help us as a nation. they aren't learning anything of value there anymore anyway:pound:

[FantasticDan]

It already did, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. It expired after 10 years and was not renewed because of public opposition and because it was totally ineffective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Studies_on_effectivene ss_of_the_legislation

Can you cite a source for "public opposition" to the Assault Weapons Ban?

Your Wiki article says nothing about it, altho it does cite public support for the ban in the first place:

In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. The bill's author, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[7] In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns". They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.

[BaffertsWig]

6 pages and not one mention of high capacity magazines? Or is that too "common sense" and obvious?

[davew]

Pandy,
We had school shootings during 0bama - and they had both houses to boot. no common sense laws were passed.

WHERE WERE NANCY and CHUCKIE back then, horsey, Dan?

WHY did the dems let the nation down by FAILING to take advantage of the power they held to pass common sense gun laws?

NANCY and CHUCKIE were taking orders from HARRY

[fast4522]

NANCY and CHUCKIE were taking orders from HARRY

What exactly is that dingbat up to these days.

[Tom]

What exactly is that dingbat up to these days.

She built a "She-Shed" in her backyard.
We just call it the Bat Cave.

[Clocker]

Can you cite a source for "public opposition" to the Assault Weapons Ban?



There was enough public opposition to renewing it in 2004 to kill any attempt to renew the ban.

Between May 2003 and June 2008, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Representatives Michael Castle, R-DE, Alcee Hastings, D-FL, and Mark Kirk, R-IL, introduced bills to reauthorize the ban.[37] During the same time, Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, introduced similar bills to create a new ban with a revised definition for assault weapons. None of the bills left committee.[38] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#cite_note-AWB_&_Law_Enforcement_Protection_Act-38)Politicians know what side their bread is buttered on.



Your Wiki article says nothing about it, altho it does cite public support for the ban in the first place:The "public" believed their "leaders" who told them it was a good thing and put an end to all evil in the world. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

6 pages and not one mention of high capacity magazines? Or is that too "common sense" and obvious?

Hi-cap mags were included in the 1994 ban. Faced with the reality that banning possession of such mags was impossible, and that such a ban would have a good chance of being struck down by the courts, the ban was on the sale of any manufactured after the effective date of the ban.

There were probably millions of such magazines in the hands of the public at the time. It was never difficult to purchase them, but the prices went up about 50%.

[buzzy]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cMIVNntHs&feature=share

This was the 90’s.. robbers out gunning cops, absolute insanity!!!.. now children are being killed in schools.. something has to be done with gun control!!!

[buzzy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2018/02/14/eighteen-years-of-gun-violence-in-u-s-schools-mapped/

[FantasticDan]

There was enough public opposition to renewing it in 2004 to kill any attempt to renew the ban.
Politicians know what side their bread is buttered on.

Yes, and the NRA was supplying the butter. Big refrigerated trucks just full of the stuff.

Your claim that there was public opposition to renewing the ban is disingenuous and bogus. 68% of Americans supported renewing the ban, as did law enforcement.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/assault-weapon-ban-expires/

[Clocker]

Your claim that there was public opposition to renewing the ban is disingenuous and bogus.

I didn't say the opposition was in the majority, I said that it was strong enough to kill it.

Just like the popular vote for Trump wasn't in the majority, but it was strong enough to put him in office.

Our system protects against the tyranny of the majority, again and again. :D

[Tom]

68% of Americans supported renewing the ban, as did law enforcement.

Then you better be asking the spineless democrats, 0bama, Pelosi, and Schumer WHY did they not bring it back when they had both houses???

If the demand is there, why are you losers not trying to change the constitution to do it?

I'll tell you why - you guys do NOT have the support you claim to have,no matter what cBS says.

And if you did, you still lack the balls and the work ethic to actually DO something rather than WHINE about it. Put the blame where it belongs - YOUR PARTY of losers. :pound::pound::pound:

Face it, your guys are nothing but blather. Always have , always will be. Loser and whiners. You have become all that can be.
As little as it is.

0bama - the 0 was earned!

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsnyt/status/964955102791503874

[mrhorseplayer]

Thought assault was a act not a object.

[woodtoo]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsnyt/status/964955102791503874

I take it you took the time to call him to congratulate him.:ThmbUp:

We can all do more.

[hcap]

The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-states-with-the-most-gun-laws-see-the-fewest-gun-related-deaths/448044/

And although crime rates are at historical lows, it is low only if we ignore how poorly we do compared with OTHER countries. BTW, there may be other reasons it is low historically....

Has removing lead from paint and petrol reduced CRIME? Toxin is linked to surges in theft and violent assault

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2609623/Has-removing-lead-paint-petrol-reduced-CRIME-Toxin-linked-surges-theft-violent-assault.html#ixzz57Ry7ORkH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Inner Dirt]

6 pages and not one mention of high capacity magazines? Or is that too "common sense" and obvious?

That is common sense to someone anti-gun who wouldn't know a 9mm pistol from a Co2 one.

[Inner Dirt]

[QUOTE=hcap;2278426]The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-states-with-the-most-gun-laws-see-the-fewest-gun-related-deaths/448044/



Do you believe that utter nonsense? Someone found a way to manipulate numbers or outright lie. It has DC as 13th safest "state" in the USA, are you kidding me?

[chadk66]

Can you cite a source for "public opposition" to the Assault Weapons Ban?

Your Wiki article says nothing about it, altho it does cite public support for the ban in the first place:The only source you need is "Trump was elected president".

[mrhorseplayer]

Hicup

why would we want to compare the USA to another country is that the same as comparing apples to oranges?

[JustRalph]

What if, say, a guy beats his wife and gives her a concussion and a few broken bones. Should he be allowed to buy a gun?

It’s already the law that if convicted of such, no gun.

But it’s stupid. This same guy can get a gun and kill (and they do) any time he wants. Just like your 18 yr old from the burbs. If motivated no law stops a killer, ever!

[Clocker]

The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths

Short rebuttal: Chicago and D.C.

Longer rebuttal: I would suggest that the binary categories, such as states with and without "stand your ground" laws are too vague and vary too much within each category for a statistically significant study. Similarly, "may issue" and "shall issue" can vary greatly from state to state.

The category about background checks on private sales is meaningless. A quick check shows that some states listed as requiring background checks actually require a check for handguns but not for long guns.

Given those differences, the sample sizes are too small for a statistically significant finding.

[woodtoo]

Short rebuttal: Chicago and D.C.

Longer rebuttal: I would suggest that the binary categories, such as states with and without "stand your ground" laws are too vague and vary too much within each category for a statistically significant study. Similarly, "may issue" and "shall issue" can vary greatly from state to state.

The category about background checks on private sales is meaningless. A quick check shows that some states listed as requiring background checks actually require a check for handguns but not for long guns.

Given those differences, the sample sizes are too small for a statistically significant finding.

Thanks for this info its very helpful.:ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Shocking news from the Washington Post.

After the school shooting in his state, Sen. Mario Rubio was asked about new gun legislation. His response was that no proposed legislation currently being discussed would have prevented that shooting, or any of the other mass shootings in the past years.

The Washington Post went back to the Newtown shooting in 2012 and chose 12 mass shootings to analyze. Fact-checkers concluded that none of the shootings would have been avoided by passing new laws currently under discussion. Oops, Rubio was right. :faint:

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/18/shocker-wapo-fact-check-agrees-rubios-statement-new-gun-laws/

[Clocker]

Not pointing any fingers, but:

https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2018/02/Liberal-Versus-Gun.jpeg?resize=580%2C345

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe if the FBI weren't so busy covering their asses and chasing down Trump ghosts they might have been able to divert some resources to stopping Cruz when he was first reported as someone worthy of bringing in for questioning and investigation.

That would have been a whole lot more effective than some more gun laws that won't stop a would be criminal from getting a gun.

Do you think a person intent on slaughtering school kids is going to let a gun law get in his or her way?

[rastajenk]

Maybe kids that get kicked out of school should be put on a no-buy list until they're 21 or more. That could be simple common sense start.

[OntheRail]

Not pointing any fingers, but:

https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2018/02/Liberal-Versus-Gun.jpeg?resize=580%2C345

:pound: So true... You should place that in the Libby Corner.

[barahona44]

Maybe if the FBI weren't so busy covering their asses and chasing down Trump ghosts they might have been able to divert some resources to stopping Cruz when he was first reported as someone worthy of bringing in for questioning and investigation.

That would have been a whole lot more effective than some more gun laws that won't stop a would be criminal from getting a gun.

Do you think a person intent on slaughtering school kids is going to let a gun law get in his or her way?
And what could the FBI do?Had he committed a crime yet?Unless you're going to lock people up for what they MIGHT do....

Broward County sherriff's was called to his house nearly 40 times over a 7 year period.Whether he was ever arrested or the exact nature of the calls is unknown,or may never be known at this time ,especially because he was a juvenile during much of that time frame.So obviously being scrutinized by law enforcement didn't seem to faze him.

[chadk66]

And what could the FBI do?Had he committed a crime yet?Unless you're going to lock people up for what they MIGHT do....

Broward County sherriff's was called to his house nearly 40 times over a 7 year period.Whether he was ever arrested or the exact nature of the calls is unknown,or may never be known at this time ,especially because he was a juvenile during much of that time frame.So obviously being scrutinized by law enforcement didn't seem to faze him.it's proof our mental illness process is horrible. overhauling how we deal with the mentally ill is the only way to put a dent in these shootings. but you already know that I'm sure.

[JustRalph]

And what could the FBI do?Had he committed a crime yet?Unless you're going to lock people up for what they MIGHT do....

Broward County sherriff's was called to his house nearly 40 times over a 7 year period.Whether he was ever arrested or the exact nature of the calls is unknown,or may never be known at this time ,especially because he was a juvenile during much of that time frame.So obviously being scrutinized by law enforcement didn't seem to faze him.

This is why you need to work the other end of the problem. You make schools secure

[Robert Fischer]

I don't know.

[horses4courses]

:pound: So true... You should place that in the Libby Corner.

I have another suggestion as to where you can place it.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWUenyJVwAA8YJu.jpg:small

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWUdqA-U8AIpDVz.jpg:small

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWUflLXVwAAB3xA.jpg:small

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWUe6JNVwAEeNLT.jpg:small

[Show Me the Wire]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWUenyJVwAA8YJu.jpg:small


You do understand the phrase "would have" means it did not happen, like the rest of the haves, could have, should have. Your meme makes no sense. It is truly very sad some people believe cartoons and memes substitute for logical arguments.

[PaceAdvantage]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWUenyJVwAA8YJu.jpg:smallHow come ol' JK3, who is named after a known Nazi sympathizer and Jew hater, didn't write "all of these WHITE men?"

Did he forget to brush up on the liberal playbook before writing that?

Big omission on his part...could have scored some extra points.

[horses4courses]

How come ol' JK3, who is named after a known Nazi sympathizer and Jew hater, didn't write "all of these WHITE men?"

Did he forget to brush up on the liberal playbook before writing that?

Big omission on his part...could have scored some extra points.

Point taken.
It would have added slightly more accuracy.

[Clocker]

I have another suggestion as to where you can place it.

Says the King of Komics. :D

Sorry if that triggered you.

[PaceAdvantage]

And people like to claim off-topic is some sort of alt-right haven....

The results of the poll thus far would say otherwise

[FantasticDan]

And people like to claim off-topic is some sort of alt-right haven....The results of the poll thus far would say otherwiseUnfortunately, voting anonymously in a poll doesn't represent the tone of this forum nearly as much as the constant alt-right chorus :ThmbDown:

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks God you guys have answers for everything. Keeps a forum humming...:ThmbUp:

[Inner Dirt]

The answer is really simple, the mentally ill, gang members and other assorted criminals need to be educated on gun laws. The gun laws in this country are fine, it is lack of education about them. I am pretty sure a crazy person, gang member or homicidal maniac would never bring a gun in a gun free zone if they knew it was against the law. Also the same individual would be deterred from using a firearm to kill someone if they realized violating a gun law would add two years to their 25 years to life sentence or death penalty.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/samuelaadams/status/965224744449605632

[jocko699]

https://twitter.com/samuelaadams/status/965224744449605632

OMG, now you are linking teenage activism who have as much knowledge and experience as the wanker from Melbourne.

You are going to depths I didn't think you could achieve. I was wrong:bang:

[steveb]

OMG, now you are linking teenage activism who have as much knowledge and experience as the wanker from Melbourne.

You are going to depths I didn't think you could achieve. I was wrong:bang:

once a day and twice on sundays!
what about you?

[jocko699]

once a day and twice on sundays!
what about you?

Can you translate this to English so we can understand WTF you are talking about?

Thank you.

[steveb]

Can you translate this to English so we can understand WTF you are talking about?

Thank you.

did you not call me a wanker???
now, what about you.
i am guessing you would outdo me seeing as you are not yet of age!

[Clocker]

OMG, now you are linking teenage activism who have as much knowledge and experience as the wanker from Melbourne.

You are going to depths I didn't think you could achieve. I was wrong:bang:

When all you have is Pelosi, Schumer, & Co., active teenage leadership is not going to lower depths, it is a step or two up the ladder.

[jocko699]

did you not call me a wanker???
now, what about you.
i am guessing you would outdo me seeing as you are not yet of age!

As I said before, WTF are you babbling about?

[jocko699]

When all you have is Pelosi, Schumer, & Co., active teenage leadership is not going to lower depths, it is a step or two up the ladder.

Very good point!!!!!

[steveb]

As I said before, WTF are you babbling about?

Wanker, literally "one who wanks (masturbates)", is a general insult. It is a pejorative term of English origin common in Britain and other parts of the English-speaking world (mainly commonwealth nations), including Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.


now what about you!!
i would bet you would leave me for dead in the wanking department!!!

[jocko699]

Wanker, literally "one who wanks (masturbates)", is a general insult. It is a pejorative term of English origin common in Britain and other parts of the English-speaking world (mainly commonwealth nations), including Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.


now what about you!!
i would bet you would leave me for dead in the wanking department!!!

I am sure after a 12-pack even you would seem attractive:pound::pound::pound:

[PaceAdvantage]

You two could use a time-out from this thread.

[jocko699]

You two could use a time-out from this thread.

Timing myself out on the naughty mat.:headbanger:

[steveb]

You two could use a time-out from this thread.

i was simply reading it, and if he did not refer to me, then i would not have said anything.
but he did and so i did.
at least he now knows what a wanker is.
a look in the mirror would be self confirmation too!!

[FantasticDan]

A long, disturbing accounting of how the intention of the 2nd amendment has been methodically twisted by the NRA:

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/965394257417818112

[Clocker]

A long, disturbing accounting of how the intention of the 2nd amendment has been methodically twisted by the NRA:


Oops, hints of the truth about the liberal agenda are starting to bubble to the top of the swamp. The left doesn't really want "common sense adjustments" to gun control laws, they want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Just as they don't really want a good deal on DACA, they want amnesty for 12 million illegals.

Ironic that the go-to researcher for the liberal history of the 2nd Amendment is named Carl T. Bogus. :p

And the Bogus story is a long and, for a lot of reasons disturbing, account. But it is not worth discussing because it is not relevant.

Laws with long histories are shaped by the original intent and by common usage and by changing norms and technology and by the courts. Whether or not it was the intent of the founders (I think it was), the 2nd Amendment today protects an individual right, and that is not going to be seriously challenged, let alone changed, for some time.

[FantasticDan]

Oops, hints of the truth about the liberal agenda are starting to bubble to the top of the swamp. The left doesn't really want "common sense adjustments" to gun control laws, they want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
:D That's what you get from that article, huh?

Well, I guess if you weren't as well stocked with paranoia as you are with ammunition, you wouldn't be a gun nut :p :ThmbUp:

[jocko699]

:D That's what you get from that article, huh?

Well, I guess if you weren't as well stocked with paranoia as you are with ammunition, you wouldn't be a gun nut :p :ThmbUp:

Takes one to know one

[FantasticDan]

Takes one to know one
I appreciate you making an effort to improve the quality of your typical responses :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

:D That's what you get from that article, huh?

Well, I guess if you weren't as well stocked with paranoia as you are with ammunition, you wouldn't be a gun nut :p :ThmbUp:

No, I got some good stuff there. Like I found out that the NRA was dormant through the 1960s because Lee Harvey Oswald bought his sniper rifle (I'm sure it would be called an assault weapon today) through an ad in the NRA magazine. :rolleyes:

Actually, there was nothing in the article that I had not seen before. Just one more futile shot at trying to chip away at the 2nd Amendment.

[Clocker]

Well, I guess if you weren't as well stocked with paranoia as you are with ammunition, you wouldn't be a gun nut :p :ThmbUp:

Paranoia is defined as delusions of persecution, imagining that people are out to get you. Gun owners have no delusions about it, they know that in reality there are people who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment and to take away their guns.

It is people that fear legal gun owners that are paranoid.

[elysiantraveller]

Paranoia is defined as delusions of persecution, imagining that people are out to get you. Gun owners have no delusions about it, they know that in reality there are people who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment and to take away their guns.

It is people that fear legal gun owners that are paranoid.

The above is why it's so hard to have meaningful discussions about gun control FD.

The mere fact we even talk about "assault weapons" instead of hand guns is proof the logic isn't nearly as important as emotion to gun control advocates.

[woodtoo]

Meaningful discussion is what we need, what we want is some new tweets from people no one knows. :pound:

[Inner Dirt]

The above is why it's so hard to have meaningful discussions about gun control FD.

The mere fact we even talk about "assault weapons" instead of hand guns is proof the logic isn't nearly as important as emotion to gun control advocates.

More people are killed by knives than all rifles combined.

[FakeNameChanged]

More people are killed by knives than all rifles combined.
Not even close if you include all firearms vs. knife murders per the fbi's database. Looking at five years from 2009-2013, total firearm deaths(murders) were 64.8k in US. vs. 8.3k for knives. I didn't find the last five years, but would venture a guess that it's probably worse.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls

[MutuelClerk]

Our veterans need work. They don't all return broken. Hire the best of the best ARMED in every school. Make it a good paying job, after all they're going from protecting our country to protecting your kids. Put two in every school. These killers will stop preying on kids. This seems like a middle ground that most should be able to handle.

They will still attack though. Churches, malls, wherever people congregate. When this happens put them there too. Pretty soon we will be close to a police state, people will tire of having a solider on almost every corner. It will force politicians to react. Then and only then will the gun issue and the mental health issue get the attention they deserve and hopefully get resolved.

[Inner Dirt]

More people are killed by knives than all rifles combined.


Not even close if you include all firearms vs. knife murders per the fbi's database. Looking at five years from 2009-2013, total firearm deaths(murders) were 64.8k in US. vs. 8.3k for knives. I didn't find the last five years, but would venture a guess that it's probably worse.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls


I said RIFLE what part of that passed you by? It was in reference to the demonization of the so called "ASSAULT RIFLE." I was NEVER implying knives killed more people than GUNS.

[Clocker]

I said RIFLE what part of that passed you by? It was in reference to the demonization of the so called "ASSAULT RIFLE." I was NEVER implying knives killed more people than GUNS.

And over 60% of gun deaths in this country are suicides. I suspect that the rate of knife suicides is a bit lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides

[barahona44]

I said RIFLE what part of that passed you by? It was in reference to the demonization of the so called "ASSAULT RIFLE." I was NEVER implying knives killed more people than GUNS.

The problem is that you were taking a subset (rifles) of a entire set (firearms) and comparing it to another entire set (knives).

[Clocker]

Oh no, a strong argument to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. :faint:

Peter Schiff says that the Russians are big fans of Americans having guns and killing each other. He says Russians were continually posting content on Facebook and other social media sites that were designed to pit Americans against one another.

They also trumpeted the Second Amendment. Apparently, the Russians are very big fans of our Second Amendment. They don’t particularly want a Second Amendment of their own, but they’re really glad that we have one. The Russians would be thrilled if we were doing nothing but killing each other every day, and sadly we are.

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/02/06/watch-adam-schiff-rants-about-the-russians-pushing-the-second-amendment-n2444856

[elysiantraveller]

The problem is that you were taking a subset (rifles) of a entire set (guns) and comparing it to another entire set (knives).

The point being made is all of this talk about "assault rifles" (and yes I'm still using quotes since I still don't know what it means and I build the things) is completely disingenuous. They do not cause that many murders in this country compared to knives or a different type of gun being completely ignored.

[Clocker]

The problem is that you were taking a subset (rifles) of a entire set (firearms) and comparing it to another entire set (knives).

Good point. I'd guess that the homicide rate for death by butter knife is quite low, although I was unable to find any data on that. I suspect that the butter knife industry is suppressing that information.

And it points out that gun control advocates should stop using total firearms related deaths, including hand guns and shotguns, and including suicides, as "proof" that we need to ban "assault rifles".

[Tom]

Unfortunately, voting anonymously in a poll doesn't represent the tone of this forum nearly as much as the constant alt-right chorus :ThmbDown:

Yeah, unlike YOUR side of the aisle, endless re-tweets and cartoons. At least the alt side knows how to talk for themselves.

[Clocker]

The point being made is all of this talk about "assault rifles" (and yes I'm still using quotes since I still don't know what it means and I build the things) is completely disingenuous.

The definition of an "assault rifle" is a conventionally functioning semi-automatic rifle whose evil-looking cosmetic features gets liberal panties in a twist.

[Tom]

Meaningful discussion is what we need, what we want is some new tweets from people no one knows. :pound:

Those anonymous tweeters have far more credibility here than the re-tweeter has! :lol:

[Inner Dirt]

The definition of an "assault rifle" is a conventionally functioning semi-automatic rifle whose evil-looking cosmetic features gets liberal panties in a twist.


A friend of mine in California had some 100 round drums for .22 rifles sent here until he figured out logistics. Does that turn a .22 rifle into an assault rifle in liberal eyes? Or would they think it made it into a full auto Tommy submachine gun like in the 1920's gangster movies?

[elysiantraveller]

The definition of an "assault rifle" is a conventionally functioning semi-automatic rifle whose evil-looking cosmetic features gets liberal panties in a twist.

And typically black... which is racist to all the brown guns.

[Inner Dirt]

The definition of an "assault rifle" is a conventionally functioning semi-automatic rifle whose evil-looking cosmetic features gets liberal panties in a twist.


I wonder if anti gun liberals realize that any magazine feed weapon will hold as many rounds as the magazine allows, which is only determined by the size of the magazine, not by the base weapon itself. It seems to be a popular liberal misconception that the evil "assault rifle" holds more rounds than any other easily available weapon.

[Tom]

Liberalism lives in delusion.
Truth is only limited by the imagination.

[Clocker]

I wonder if anti gun liberals realize that any magazine feed weapon will hold as many rounds as the magazine allows, which is only determined by the size of the magazine, not by the base weapon itself. It seems to be a popular liberal misconception that the evil "assault rifle" holds more rounds than any other easily available weapon.

Some do. That's why the AWB of 1994 limited the sale of new magazines for any weapon, rifle or hand gun, to 10 rounds.

On the other hand, most gun grabbers appear to limit their concept of YUGE 20-30 round magazines to evil AR-15s and AK-47 lookalikes.

They don't understand that many other styles of rifles, like this Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle, can use 30 round magazines:

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2014/03/05/2772694_01_ruger_mini_14_223_675_00_no_tr_640.jpg

I don't know if they still carry them, or even if they are still in production, but back in the day you could buy one of these at Wal-Mart.

[woodtoo]

Law-abiding gun owners have more than 600 million firearms and roughly
25 trillion rounds of ammo. If they had a problem you'd know it.

[barahona44]

Did you mean 25 billion rounds of ammunition? 25 trillion would be almost 42,000 rounds per weapon.

[JustRalph]

Did you mean 25 billion rounds of ammunition? 25 trillion would be almost 42,000 rounds per weapon.

Stay out of my closet!

[elysiantraveller]

I don't know if they still carry them, or even if they are still in production, but back in the day you could buy one of these at Wal-Mart.

You can still find them and they are still manufactured. Absolutely fantastic gun. Mechanically very similar to an AR just like this...

https://performanceshooting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DSC_0001-2.jpg

Which looks completely harmless... unless you were a Nazi circa 1944.

[chadk66]

we could solve this whole damn AR debacle by just forcing them to sell them in only pink color:pound:

[Tom]

we could solve this whole damn AR debacle by just forcing them to sell them in only pink color:pound:

We made this one for Crosman Arms - the PumpMaster 760 Pink!

:lol:

[Clocker]

More on the "common-sense adjustments" to gun control laws the left would like to see.

In an appearance on NBC’s Sunday Today early that morning, moderator Chuck Todd lambasted Republicans for being the reason gun control efforts were making no progress since they were in control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Todd ratcheted up his anti-gun stance during Meet the Press by promoting radical calls to abolish the right to bear arms by repealing the Second Amendment. And he did it by highlighting the writings of Bret Stephens, a never-Trumper turned liberal.

“Isn’t the difficulty here legislatively, the Constitution,” Todd lamented to his largely liberal panel. “Which is Bret Stephens' point in The New York Times, he’s calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.”
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/02/18/nbcs-chuck-todd-promotes-abolishing-second-amendment

[FantasticDan]

More on the "common-sense adjustments" to gun control laws the left would like to see.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/02/18/nbcs-chuck-todd-promotes-abolishing-second-amendment
Just so you know, all Todd did was acknowledge the obvious in his panel's discussion that the 2A stands in the way of any gun control legislation, and then immediately stated the equally obvious that the 2A isn't going anywhere.. which naturally isn't mentioned in your wing nut link.

You can read the transcript here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-18-2018-n849191

[jocko699]

Just so you know, all Todd did was acknowledge the obvious in his panel's discussion that the 2A stands in the way of any gun control legislation, and then immediately stated the equally obvious that the 2A isn't going anywhere.. which naturally isn't mentioned in your wing nut link.

You can read the transcript here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-18-2018-n849191

You casually say wing nut link Danny but than you link NBC. OMFG, you are brilliant:pound::pound::pound:

[Clocker]

Just so you know, all Todd did was acknowledge the obvious in his panel's discussion that the 2A stands in the way of any gun control legislation, and then immediately stated the equally obvious that the 2A isn't going anywhere.. which naturally isn't mentioned in your wing nut link.



Todd acknowledged that some on the left want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and that some on the left recognize it is not a realistic goal. He doesn't deny that many on the left, perhaps including himself, would dearly love to see it gone.

“Isn’t the difficulty here legislatively, the Constitution,” Todd lamented to his largely liberal panel. “Which is Bret Stephens' point in The New York Times, he’s calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.”

[PaceAdvantage]

and then immediately stated the equally obvious that the 2A isn't going anywhere.. This is just a temporary "placating gesture" by the left...need to keep that false sense of security in place for the "easily agitated rednecks."

[woodtoo]

Did you mean 25 billion rounds of ammunition? 25 trillion would be almost 42,000 rounds per weapon.

You are right.

[chadk66]

since repealing the 2nd is the furthest thing from an option they might as well spend their time on better options. silly liberals.

[FantasticDan]

Todd acknowledged that some on the left want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and that some on the left recognize it is not a realistic goal.
I'd love for you to find me anyone on the left who sees repealing the 2A as "realistic". I really don't care who would (theoretically) love to see it gone, that's about as legislatively relevant as what toppings they like on their pizza.

[Clocker]

I'd love for you to find me anyone on the left who sees repealing the 2A as "realistic". I really don't care who would (theoretically) love to see it gone, that's about as legislatively relevant as what toppings they like on their pizza.

There is already one cited a few posts above: Bret Stephens and the NY Times. From the NYT article:

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones.

[FantasticDan]

There is already one cited a few posts above: Bret Stephens and the NY Times.
Uh-oh! He's gonna get you, Clocker! You know what to do..

https://memecrunch.com/meme/9ABIC/come-get-you-some/image.gif

[BaffertsWig]

I wonder if anti gun liberals realize that any magazine feed weapon will hold as many rounds as the magazine allows, which is only determined by the size of the magazine, not by the base weapon itself. It seems to be a popular liberal misconception that the evil "assault rifle" holds more rounds than any other easily available weapon.


6 pages and not one mention of high capacity magazines? Or is that too "common sense" and obvious?

:rolleyes:

[elysiantraveller]

Because you are attempting to ban a piece of plastic with a spring in it. It's non-sensical and there are millions in circulation. Plus let's say you limit to ten you simply carry more magazines. It's a pointless feel good band aid solution.

Most issues being thrown about have nothing to do with a real world solution which is how do we keep bad people from getting guns.

The age issue brought up earlier is stupid too. You're old enough to enlist, be issued an M4, fight and die for this country but you can't buy a semi-automatic rifle as a civilian? Nevermind that hand guns do have that age restriction and still commit far more murders than rifles.

[elysiantraveller]

Uh-oh! He's gonna get you, Clocker! You know what to do..

https://memecrunch.com/meme/9ABIC/come-get-you-some/image.gif

Isn't it interesting how certain people get all fired up about the first amendment but then immediately go on attack when it comes to the second?

[Tom]

Todd acknowledged that some on the left want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and that some on the left recognize it is not a realistic goal. He doesn't deny that many on the left, perhaps including himself, would dearly love to see it gone.

I've said many times that it is their right to do so.
OR change it.

THEY keep saying they have all this overwhelming support for strict gun control, but have no balls to try to use the constitution's own remedy for outdated sections - the amendment process.

Too scared to try, or too lazy?

I would think that if the left believed HALF of the BS they post here about mass shooting they would consider it their DUTY to try.

Talk is cheap.

[biggestal99]

I've said many times that it is their right to do so.
OR change it.

THEY keep saying they have all this overwhelming support for strict gun control, but have no balls to try to use the constitution's own remedy for outdated sections - the amendment process.

Too scared to try, or too lazy?

I would think that if the left believed HALF of the BS they post here about mass shooting they would consider it their DUTY to try.

Talk is cheap.

No reason for an amendment. Gun can be regulated by states under the constitution as it stands.

Did you see scotus deny 2 California gun owners today who did like the 10 waiting period to purchase guns in California. Or the assualt rifle sales ban in jersey and other states.

States already regulate guns no need for an amendment.

Allan

[Clocker]

Uh-oh! He's gonna get you, Clocker! You know what to do..



You asked for a liberal who really believes the 2nd Amendment can be abolished. I give you Bret Stephens and the NY Times, and all you got is Rambo?

Stallone and Stephens and you all have one thing in common, you are all shooting blanks. :cool:

[jocko699]

Justice Thomas' dissent of the Writ of Certiorari denial concerning the legality of Fruitville's 10-day waiting period on gun purchases.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf

[FantasticDan]

You asked for a liberal who really believes the 2nd Amendment can be abolished. I give you Bret Stephens and the NY Times, and all you got is Rambo?
Stephens and the NYT? Stephens wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the NYT. Does the NYT support and endorse all its op-ed pieces, or have they done away with that standard disclaimer?

And I was referring to a politician or legislator on the left, not a columnist. :rolleyes:

Btw, this was Stephens' wild rationale for repealing the 2A:

We need to repeal the Second Amendment because most gun-control legislation is ineffective when most Americans have a guaranteed constitutional right to purchase deadly weaponry in nearly unlimited quantities.

There’s a good case to be made for owning a handgun for self-defense, or a rifle for hunting. There is no remotely sane case for being allowed to purchase, as Paddock did, 33 firearms in the space of a year. But that change can’t happen without a constitutional fix. Anything less does little more than treat the symptoms of the disease..
Now I know that very sane argument actually sounds insane to a gun nut, but I think most of America would agree with Stephens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

[chadk66]

the overwhelming majority of these shootings could be prevented if we institutionalize the mental cases like we used to do.

[elysiantraveller]

Stephens and the NYT? Stephens wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the NYT. Does the NYT support and endorse all its op-ed pieces, or have they done away with that standard disclaimer?

And I was referring to a politician or legislator on the left, not a columnist. :rolleyes:

Btw, this was Stephens' wild rationale for repealing the 2A:

.
Now I know that very sane argument actually sounds insane to a gun nut, but I think most of America would agree with Stephens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

So now we want to change the age and the number you can legally own?

There is that slippery slope.

Two questions... what's an assault rifle? Also were you against handguns after Columbine too? Honest question.

This is the problem with the gun stuff and why people get labelled as "gun nuts." There is no consistency to the arguments. After Columbine it was hand guns. After Aurora it was magazines. After Vegas It was the number of guns. Now after Florida it's the age to purchase... finally it's the let's just repeal the Amendment and start from scratch...

Quite the moving target to negotiate in good faith don't ya think?

[Clocker]

And I was referring to a politician or legislator on the left, not a columnist.

You said "anyone". :liar:

[FantasticDan]

Two questions... what's an assault rifle? Also were you against handguns after Columbine too? Honest question.

This is the problem with the gun stuff and why people get labelled as "gun nuts." There is no consistency to the arguments. After Columbine it was hand guns. After Aurora it was magazines. After Vegas It was the number of guns. Now after Florida it's the age to purchase... finally it's the let's just repeal the Amendment and start from scratch...

Quite the moving target to negotiate in good faith don't ya think?
I think that was the crux of Stephens' argument.. your "moving targets" being his various "symptoms of a disease". That's why he wants to start from scratch.

And I don't know what constitutes an assault rifle. And I have never been for banning handguns. I support the right of a qualified adult to own one if they pass a thorough background check. The same goes for a rifle or shotgun.

[jocko699]

I think that was the crux of Stephens' argument.. your "moving targets" being his various "symptoms of a disease". That's why he wants to start from scratch.

And I don't know what constitutes an assault rifle. And I have never been for banning handguns. I support the right of a qualified adult to own one if they pass a thorough background check. The same goes for a rifle or shotgun.

What is a qualified adult?

[FantasticDan]

What is a qualified adult?
Someone who has passed a course regarding the proper handling and operation of their firearm.

[elysiantraveller]

Someone who has passed a course regarding the proper handling and operation of their firearm.

I wonder how many mass shooters have been through hunters safety? I took it when I was 12.

Something I think every American should go through as part of curriculum. No offense but the complete lack of firearm knowledge demonstrated by most gun control advocates illustrates the need.

[FantasticDan]

An oldie but a goodie

https://youtu.be/mVuspKSjfgA

[jocko699]

Someone who has passed a course regarding the proper handling and operation of their firearm.

And who would be in charge of this? The government? More government?

The problem is still not the weaponry but the individual that has decided to take innocent lives and until you hold them and those family that should have stopped these monsters nothing will change.

[jocko699]

I wonder how many mass shooters have been through hunters safety? I took it when I was 12.

Something I think every American should go through as part of curriculum. No offense but the complete lack of firearm knowledge demonstrated by most gun control advocates illustrates the need.

When do they have to go through what responsible breeding is?:pound:

[Tom]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan View Post
Someone who has passed a course regarding the proper handling and operation of their firearm.

And this would prevent mass shootings?
How many have been by accident so far?

[steveb]

An oldie but a goodie

https://youtu.be/mVuspKSjfgA

may i ask what it is about.

when i go to watch it, i get this message.....


The uploader has not made this video available in your country.

...considering it mentions the country i am in, then i find it odd.

[Clocker]

David French at the National Review explains why "assault weapons" preserve the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Two brief excerpts:

...the foreseeable criminal threat to you or your family comes from a person wielding — at the very least — a semiautomatic pistol with a high-capacity magazine. This is one reason that police typically don’t carry revolvers. Their own weapons of choice have evolved to deal with the threat, and — as my colleague Charlie Cooke is fond of noting — if a person doesn’t “need” a high-capacity magazine to defend himself, then why do the police use them?

If I use an AR-15 for home defense, then I possess firepower that matches or likely exceeds (given how rarely rifles are used in gun crimes) that of any likely home intruder. Limit the size of the magazine to, say, ten rounds, and you’ve placed the law-abiding homeowner at a disadvantage. Prohibit them from obtaining a compact, easy-to-use, highly accurate carbine, and you’ve ensured that homeowners will be defending themselves with less accurate weapons. The best weapons “in common use” would be reserved for criminals.
The argument is not that a collection of random citizens should be able to go head-to-head with the Third Cavalry Regiment. That’s absurd. Nor is the argument that citizens should possess weapons “in common use” in the military. Rather, for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

[Tom]

Unorganized citizens taking on the armed forces?
Preposterous!

Where in the world could that ever happen?

Besides, of course, Tikrit, Mosul, Fallujah, Basra........

[Inner Dirt]

6 pages and not one mention of high capacity magazines? Or is that too "common sense" and obvious?

I have sausage fingers and definitely don't have Floyd Mayweather's hand speed yet I can change a magazine in 3 seconds including pulling a loaded one out of a jacket pocket and putting the empty in the same pocket. I have seen videos of quick sure handed people letting the empty hit the ground and changing them so fast you almost can't see what they did. I would think they are doing it in around a second. The difference between how many bullets a person can spray in a couple minutes isn't much different between a 10 round clip and a 30.

[classhandicapper]

David French at the National Review explains why "assault weapons" preserve the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Two brief excerpts:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

I have no strong view on this issue, but I'm not fully buying the argument that citizens need to be as armed as criminals. It's make perfect sense until you consider the possibility that criminals start using something far beyond AR-15s.

Illegal weapons do get smuggled and make their way out there.

Some day I might need a stockpile of grenades and rocket launchers in my closet. ;)

I'd rather head in the opposite direction where the punishment for possession of something illegal is so severe, even most criminals are reluctant to go down that route. Then the debate is on where to draw the line.

Should it be at semi-automatic weapons, higher, or lower?

[elysiantraveller]

Then the debate is on where to draw the line.

Should it be at semi-automatic weapons, higher, or lower?

The Browning Auto 5 was first patented in 1905. The M1 the first major gas operated rifle in the 1930s.

School shootings are newer phenomenon so its something else. I'd rather look into deterrence and education before we start banning something that the public has had access to for over a century.

[Tom]

The Browning Auto 5 was first patented in 1905. The M1 the first major gas operated rifle in the 1930s.

School shootings are newer phenomenon so its something else. I'd rather look into deterrence and education before we start banning something that the public has had access to for over a century.

You mean a common sense approach?;)

I would suggest part of the problem is the left jumping to the single conclusion that we need to control guns and ignore everything else.

[Tom]

Wayne LaPierre speaking on FOX right now - at National Harbor, MD. GREAT speech, touching on ALL the attacks on our freedom by the liberal loonies.

This guy gets it. I'll post a link if I can find one.

After hearing this guy, I am thinking.....2020.
Sounds better than ANY candidates I have hears in decades.

Voice of freedom rings loud.

[azeri98]

No other civilized country in the world allows its citizens to posses these types of guns, and for some reason these things don't happen in those countries, coincidence? I think not, i'm all in favour of being able to protect yourself with a hand gun, or shotgun, if you need 15 to 30 shots to protect yourself maybe you need to practice shooting more

[elysiantraveller]

No other civilized country in the world allows its citizens to posses these types of guns, and for some reason these things don't happen in those countries, coincidence? I think not, i'm all in favour of being able to protect yourself with a hand gun, or shotgun, if you need 15 to 30 shots to protect yourself maybe you need to practice shooting more

Brilliant post. :rolleyes:

https://www.vanceoutdoors.com/range/blog/images/ruger-10-22-review.jpg

^^^ BANNED ^^^

[azeri98]

Why because you can't refute the facts?

[elysiantraveller]

Why because you can't refute the facts?

I can. You need to propose something first. I'm more likely to be stabbed to death than shot with one of those guns you are discussing. I'm 4x more likely to be shot by those "A-Okay" handguns you describe.

We should play a game called Ban or don't Ban... Then you'll realize how nuanced the topic actually is and how emotion is completely overriding logic.

[classhandicapper]

The Browning Auto 5 was first patented in 1905. The M1 the first major gas operated rifle in the 1930s.

School shootings are newer phenomenon so its something else. I'd rather look into deterrence and education before we start banning something that the public has had access to for over a century.

I'm going to guess the change is that semi automatic weapons are in much wider use and there has been a general deterioration in the mental health and value system of our society (mental health and values being related).

Banning some weapons is what I would call (and typically detest) a band-aid solution. It's more of a left wing totalitarian solution. The problem is that fixing the value system and mental health of this society is probably going to be a multi-generational solution that will run into serious resistance from the left.

So maybe a reasonable compromise is extreme vetting.

I am OK with extreme vetting for immigrants from countries where a preponderance of the people have hostile feelings towards the US even though incremental risk is small. My feeling is why accept even 1 unnecessary death if we can lower the risk by covering ourselves better up front. They can come here, just make sure.

So why not look at the data on who is committing these mass shootings, consider them a higher risk class, and do extreme vetting before allowing them to purchase a gun that might kill one of our kids?

It's the same thing, but it seems the left and right are on opposite sides from each other and themselves depending on the issue.

Profiling may be unappealing in some ways, but statistics work.

[elysiantraveller]

So maybe a reasonable compromise is extreme vetting.

NOBODY is against Background Checks.

That's the problem with this issue. I get wait listed 75% I make a purchase. I'm not sure why but probably because someone with a similar name and social security number is not a nice person. I wait my 1-3 days and pick up my purchase... its completely random when it occurs as well. My last two purchases were a wait list the third I wasn't and the fourth I was.

The problem isn't the age.

It isn't the type because frankly its too difficult to administer.

It isn't some fake term like "assault weapon." 99.9% of "assault weapons" don't assault anything other than paper. One of mine assaults deer but only holds 3 rounds... is that an assault weapon too? :confused:

[Tom]

Why because you can't refute the facts?

What facts?
The premise of your post was your opinion.

if you need 15 to 30 shots to protect yourself maybe you need to practice shooting more

You are entitled to have it, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[elysiantraveller]

You are entitled to have it, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Should probably look into the accuracy of trained servicemen and what the military thinks the average small arms hit % is.

I'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.

[classhandicapper]

NOBODY is against Background Checks.

That's the problem with this issue. I get wait listed 75% I make a purchase. I'm not sure why but probably because someone with a similar name and social security number is not a nice person. I wait my 1-3 days and pick up my purchase... its completely random when it occurs as well. My last two purchases were a wait list the third I wasn't and the fourth I was.

The problem isn't the age.

It isn't the type because frankly its too difficult to administer.

It isn't some fake term like "assault weapon." 99.9% of "assault weapons" don't assault anything other than paper. One of mine assaults deer but only holds 3 rounds... is that an assault weapon too? :confused:

On the one hand you have people pointing to reasons that guns aren't the core problem and on another you have people thinking that guns are the entire problem.

In the mean time, kids are dying. That means there's a problem.

Gun advocates are in denial just like the left is every time some extremist US hater from the middle east bombs a western country. They misrepresent stats and want to invite more without vetting.

There has to be a compromise somewhere.

I'm talking about vetting that goes beyond a background check that makes you wait 3 stinking days. My Amazon purchases of vitamins take longer than that. We should identify the groups that are higher risk and do a COMPREHENSIVE risk analysis and background check.

We don't allow kids to drink until 21 because we are afraid they aren't responsible enough and may drive and kill someone but we allow them to buy and own weapons. That's ridiculous.

[PaceAdvantage]

Should probably look into the accuracy of trained servicemen and what the military thinks the average small arms hit % is.

I'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.Wait...what? Am I reading this wrong?

[elysiantraveller]

Wait...what? Am I reading this wrong?

No, you are not.

[azeri98]

I can. You need to propose something first. I'm more likely to be stabbed to death than shot with one of those guns you are discussing. I'm 4x more likely to be shot by those "A-Okay" handguns you describe.

We should play a game called Ban or don't Ban... Then you'll realize how nuanced the topic actually is and how emotion is completely overriding logic.

As a single individual, yes you are more likely to be killed by a knife, handgun or even being hit by a car, the point is 17 school kids would not have been killed by a hand gun or knife, sometimes you have to protect society as a whole and give up some individual rights to protect the many, I'm a born American but now live in Canada because I married someone from here and decided to move, I thought it would be better to raise kids here, I think I made the right decision, I see both sides of the argument, my parents live in Michigan and my dad has guns, I ask him why do you need this type of gun?. He can't give me a good answer, he just says its my right, it is, but why do you need it? Like I said before I realize the right to protect yourself, if I lived there I would but not with an "assault rifle" or whatever you want to call it. The U.S. is my birthplace and love it, I just don't like the direction is going from both sides

[PaceAdvantage]

'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.Makes zero sense, even if I'm reading it right.

The above is saying that for every insurgent kill by the US military, it is expending 250,000 bullets, essentially? That's insane.

Even at a 1/2 percent hit rate, that's over 1,200 bullets hitting a single body...:eek:

I must be reading this wrong. It's insane.

[azeri98]

Should probably look into the accuracy of trained servicemen and what the military thinks the average small arms hit % is.

I'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.

You're talking about war and fighting with enemies who are trained, not shooting kids in a barrel, sorry a school, big difference

[elysiantraveller]

Makes zero sense, even if I'm reading it right.

The above is saying that for every insurgent kill by the US military, it is expending 250,000 bullets, essentially? That's insane.

Even at a 1/2 percent hit rate, that's over 1,200 bullets hitting a single body...:eek:

I must be reading this wrong. It's insane.

You are not.

Hop on Youtube and watch some cam videos from places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. You are seeing thousands upon thousands of rounds being expended in those brief firefights before the A10 or Apache rolls in and puts an end to it.

[azeri98]

What facts?
The premise of your post was your opinion.



You are entitled to have it, but that doesn't make it a fact.

What other civilized countries have the amount of mass shootings that the U.S. does, or even gun related deaths, no country comes even remotely close, Are we more mentally ill than every other country, whats the reason behind all these mass killings, mental health is a big part but so is access to guns that can kill a lot of people in a short period of time

[elysiantraveller]

You're talking about war and fighting with enemies who are trained, not shooting kids in a barrel, sorry a school, big difference

Put armed guards in the school.

[elysiantraveller]

What other civilized countries have the amount of mass shootings that the U.S. does, or even gun related deaths, no country comes even remotely close, Are we more mentally ill than every other country, whats the reason behind all these mass killings, mental health is a big part but so is access to guns that can kill a lot of people in a short period of time

Switzerland and Israel are similarly armed.

Yes we have a mental health issue in this country. Hop on any social media site and see how people treat each other in regards to this one issue.

[elysiantraveller]

We don't allow kids to drink until 21 because we are afraid they aren't responsible enough and may drive and kill someone but we allow them to buy and own weapons. That's ridiculous.

The fact we don't allow kids to drink until they are 21 is rooted in biology as much as it is hypocrisy. We are way behind the rest of the world in regards to our drinking age so I guess we should lower that too.

Personally, I think we should.

We live in this society where Guns are now taboo. I graduated from high school this century and the entire fall when I was in school there was a gun in my truck and many others. It wasn't this taboo thing or something to be feared it was part of our culture.

Now we live in a society where we need to protect everyone from everything but then get on forums like these and social media and completely trash other human beings we are likely to get along with fine on the outside.

Finally, because of the taboo nature of some of these things our children become that much more interested with them. I recently had a conversation with a bunch of 10 year olds who play PA's game Fortnight. They are casually talking about weapons like a SCAR and their knowledge of the gun only goes as far as what they learn in a game, where they shoot people with it, and apparently its the most powerful gun in the game. That's where their knowledge of the subject ends... what they ingest from media instead of going out and learning because...?... well... we have to protect the children.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is the US still the leading ADHD medication consumer by a wide margin? We used to be about a decade ago...probably still are...

What other pharmaceuticals are US-youth taking, well above and beyond their international counterparts?

[classhandicapper]

The fact we don't allow kids to drink until they are 21 is rooted in biology as much as it is hypocrisy. We are way behind the rest of the world in regards to our drinking age so I guess we should lower that too.

Personally, I think we should.

I am opposed to allowing immigrants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.. to come to the west until they are vetted properly because the data suggests they are a higher risk.

I am in favor of drinking limitations because the data suggests kids are a worse risk to drink, drive, and kill someone

I am in favor of extreme vetting for guns (age and mental health) despite the potential problems because too many young people with mental health issues are winding up with guns and killing people.

Data is data. Everything else is self serving bullshit.

[azeri98]

Switzerland and Israel are similarly armed.

Yes we have a mental health issue in this country. Hop on any social media site and see how people treat each other in regards to this one issue.

The Israelies have to they are surrounded by enemies, the Swiss not so sure why, they don't participate in any war, always neutral, couldn't agree with you more on the social media issue, you can insult and berate anyone you want without repercussion, people who otherwise wouldn't be get very brave behind a phone or computer and you keeping poking the wrong bear and bad things happen

[elysiantraveller]

The Israelies have to they are surrounded by enemies, the Swiss not so sure why, they don't participate in any war, always neutral, couldn't agree with you more on the social media issue, you can insult and berate anyone you want without repercussion, people who otherwise wouldn't be get very brave behind a phone or computer and you keeping poking the wrong bear and bad things happen

Glad we completely agree on this.

Main problem for us "gun nuts" is we A) have a constitutional amendment protecting us and B) don't believe the opposition will ever negotiate in good faith with us.

[azeri98]

Is the US still the leading ADHD medication consumer by a wide margin? We used to be about a decade ago...probably still are...

What other pharmaceuticals are US-youth taking, well above and beyond their international counterparts?

Yes not only ADHD but all medications, because the politicians are in bed with the drug companies and we are the only country that has hospitals that are a business first and for profit, unlike any other civilized country in the world, the greed in our country is unlike any other

[elysiantraveller]

I am opposed to allowing immigrants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.. to come to the west until they are vetted properly because the data suggests they are a higher risk.

I am in favor of drinking limitations because the data suggests kids are a worse risk to drink, drive, and kill someone

I am in favor of extreme vetting for guns (age and mental health) despite the potential problems because too many young people with mental health issues are winding up with guns and killing people.

Data is data. Everything else is self serving bullshit.

I don't have a problem with your data.

Our murder rate is lower now than during the AWB. Knives are a bigger threat than rifles. Hand guns are the biggest offender. Laws to address hand guns haven't even dented the problem thus far.

[azeri98]

Glad we completely agree on this.

Main problem for us "gun nuts" is we A) have a constitutional amendment protecting us and B) don't believe the opposition will ever negotiate in good faith with us.

I see your point, if you give in on the "assault rifles" then they will try to take more, there is a compromise somewhere I just don't know how you get there. I used to go shooting with my dad all the time and enjoyed it, its a rush having a powerful gun like that but for the betterment of our society, it would be better if we didn't have them, I think the quote is " Sacrifice the right of the individual for the good of the many" just my opinion, I see your point why you wouldn't want to, that's where the dilemma is

[Clocker]

Democrats know that gun control could be a harmful election issue for them in some places. So they are trying to figure out how to push the issue where it helps them and get around it where it hurts them.

Meredith Kelly, spokeswoman for the House Democrats’ campaign arm, said the party has no plan for a national messaging strategy on gun reform, citing the “geographically and culturally diverse House battlefield.”

“For some candidates, gun violence prevention could be a much-discussed issue, particularly in the suburbs or where there’s sadly been a recent gun-related tragedy,” she said. “For others, it’s just not part of the local conversation and it won’t necessarily be the first foot they put forward in terms of messaging.” In other words, tell the people what they want to hear. :rolleyes:


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/374961-dems-want-gun-control-but-worry-it-could-cost-them-midterms

[classhandicapper]

I don't have a problem with your data.

Our murder rate is lower now than during the AWB. Knives are a bigger threat than rifles. Hand guns are the biggest offender. Laws to address hand guns haven't even dented the problem thus far.

There is a subtle difference.

Murders with knives will typically impact a single person and will often have a motivation that goes beyond random mental illness (robbery, passion, revenge, etc..). People are concerned about getting killed by a knife too, but feel that if they live in a good area and stay out of trouble it probably won't impact them.

Things like terrorism and random shootings in clubs and schools are more disturbing because huge numbers of innocent people can be involved and they make people feel like there's no way to protect their families, kids, and selves even if they do everything right.

Either way, a compromise has to be found. People are not going to dismiss deaths by gun just because more people get killed crossing the street.

[upthecreek]

https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/andyrichter/status/966754704003760129

[Clocker]

Please read this:
The AR-15 Is Different: What I Learned Treating Parkland Victims - The AtlanticThe AR-15 is not "different". It is a rifle, and uses rifle ammo. The difference he is talking about is due to the difference between rifle ammo and pistol ammo. One would think that an experienced doctor would know that.

There is nothing unique about the AR-15 except for its look. It shoots a .223 caliber round (5.56 NATO). A lot of popular and common rifles, both bolt action and semi-automatic, use that round. Should we ban all of them?

The vast majority of rifles used for hunting use larger ammo than that, and do even more damage. The only way to avoid the "difference" he is talking about is to ban rifles.

[Tom]

sometimes you have to protect society as a whole and give up some individual rights to protect the many,

I remember a guy who said that about the communists when he suspended all the rights of Germans in 1933. Then he protected them from the Jews.

[Tom]

The vast majority of rifles used for hunting use larger ammo than that, and do even more damage. The only way to avoid the "difference" he is talking about is to ban rifles.


That's the end game.
That's why you can NEVER trust anything a liberal says - they NEVER negotiate tin good faith - there is always fine print.

[Clocker]

I remember a guy who said that about the communists when he suspended all the rights of Germans in 1933. Then he protected them from the Jews.

And he was elected by popular vote. That's called the tyranny of the majority, something our founders went to great lengths to prevent. Which the "liberals" are going to great lengths to undo.

Ironic, since the term liberal used to mean one who advocated individual freedom and civil liberties being above government.

sometimes you have to protect society as a whole and give up some individual rights to protect the many"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[Clocker]

Then he protected them from the Jews.

First he disarmed them. Next came the biggest mass shooting ever.

In fact, it grew so massive that assault rifles were inefficient.

[elysiantraveller]

https://twitter.com/andyrichter/status/966754704003760129

:lol::lol:

The 12 gauge shotgun is "different"... it's capable of firing a 1 1/8 oz projectile at 1500fps and 3100 ft-lbs of energy or 4200 joules... it can literally "kill" your car.

See what I did there?

[Clocker]

Wayne LaPierre speaking on FOX right now - at National Harbor, MD. GREAT speech, touching on ALL the attacks on our freedom by the liberal loonies.

This guy gets it. I'll post a link if I can find one.

After hearing this guy, I am thinking.....2020.
Sounds better than ANY candidates I have hears in decades.

Voice of freedom rings loud.

To put it politely, Wayne does not have an electable personality. And as time goes on, the person is becoming more and more important than the policies in elections, especially at the national level.

A big point he made is that liberals are very big on passing laws, but very bad at following through on enforcement. So their answer then is to pass more laws. And the impact of most liberal laws is to restrict personal freedom.

LaPierre went on to say that existing laws are being ignored, “Their laws don’t stop illegal criminals from crossing our borders every single day. Their laws don’t stop the scourge of gang violence and drug crime that savages Baltimore, Chicago and every major American community. Their laws haven’t stopped the plague of opioids, the Chinese fentanyl from Mexico that floods American streets and kills victims every single day in this country. No wonder law abiding Americans all over this country revere their Second Amendment freedom to protect themselves more than ever.”

Liberals “don’t care if their laws work or not,” LaPierre said. “They just want to get more laws to get more control over people.
Coverage of the speech here:
http://noisyroom.net/blog/

[elysiantraveller]

That's the end game.
That's why you can NEVER trust anything a liberal says - they NEVER negotiate tin good faith - there is always fine print.

Half of the images swirling around this stuff don't pass the smell test if you know what your looking at...

[Clocker]

Half of the images swirling around this stuff don't pass the smell test if you know what your looking at...

And if you don't know, the stuff put out there by other equally uninformed people usually sounds credible, especially if it conforms to your preconceived views of the world.

[PaceAdvantage]

And if you don't know, the stuff put out there by other equally uninformed people usually sounds credible, especially if it conforms to your preconceived views of the world.Hmmm...sounds just like what the left accused the far-right of doing in cases of "crisis actors."

It's all fake news, apparently...all of it.

[elysiantraveller]

And if you don't know, the stuff put out there by other equally uninformed people usually sounds credible, especially if it conforms to your preconceived views of the world.

It's honestly unfortunate. Education is always the solution.

Your Mini 14 and the Ruger 10/22 are the best examples of people's perception and reality not gelling when it comes to the subject matter.

[davew]

Why is it mass shootings only happen in USA? Is it maybe that is all the news shows us?

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/02/19/Islamic-State-claims-responsibility-for-Russia-church-shooting/1981519053008/