CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[Fair&Balanced]

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL

I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.

The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.

 

[OldLady]

How?

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

Revolver, 8 shots in 1 second.

 

[OldLady]

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL

I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.

The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.

Stop distorting what I said. Semi automatic weapons, hand gun and long gun, should be banned.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

When you can guarantee that the ban would apply to criminals, and the police give up their semi-autos and go back to revolvers, you might have a starting point there, but if you can't, then your concept doesn't fly.

And the police ARE joe citizen, they are not a new class of knights to be given more rights than the rest of us carte blanche.

 

[martybegan]

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL

I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.

The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.

Stop distorting what I said. Semi automatic weapons, hand gun and long gun, should be banned.

and the cops would give theirs up too, right?

And criminals would stop using them too, right?

Why should a lawful person put themselves at a disadvantage?

 

[martybegan]

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

And you don't think a demand will be met by outside sources if local supplies dry up? Demand always finds a way. The drug "war" has taught us that in spades.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

 

[2aguy]

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

We know, I have listed the data from Mother Jones who listed every mass public shooting from 1982-2016...

154 people were murdered by rifles with detachable magaizines.......in 34 years.

Knives in 2014 alone murdered 1,567 people.....almost every year they murder over 1,500 people...I have given the number for years and years that I can find from the FBI homicide table 8

So.....Rifles with detachable magazines..... 154 in 34 years...

Knives.... over 1,500 every single year....

According to your own standard...all knives must be banned because they are more deadly than assault rifles....

They are more deadly than all rifles combined....

248 deaths by rifle of all types in 2014...

1,567 deaths by knife in 2014....

by your own standard the knife should be banned from society...

 

[2aguy]

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

That would require stop and frisk....since felons are already on a list that says they can't buy, own or carry guns...that is how New York lowered their gun crime rate.....and they ended that...because too many of the gang banger stopped were minorities.......

that is also the reason that democrats in Chicago refuse to raise the sentence on gun crimes....because too many of those who will go to prison under those sentences for illegal guns are blacks....

 

[kaz]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

Oh no, OldLady advocates banning semi automatic hand guns as well.

OldLady which would reduce the murder rate in this country more. Banning semi automatic weapons, or banning negroes?

I'm serious with that question, no one denies that negroes aren't the only race that murders people, just as guns aren't the only weapons used to murder people, but if our goal is to reduce murder even if we can't eliminate it, which would have a greater effect on the murder rate in this nation?

Now , recognizing that of course banning negroes would do more to lower the murder rate in this country than banning guns would, your next step will of course be to scream that we can''t possibly ban negroes in this country and I will preemptively respond by saying that if we can ban guns, we can ban negroes.

I await your response.

 

[kaz]

And so people buy drugs ... illegally. My point. You may have heard about that, it's been in the news ...

No. The point is actually that many addicts began by being prescribed opiates for a bonafide medical issue. Then they got hooked and tried "doctor shopping" and emergency room jumping to get more as their need increased. And when that no longer worked, they switched to heroin. Focusing on the root of the problem, where it started, will hopefully save the upcoming generation from a similar fate. To me, it makes equal sense that if the root of the illegal gun problem--guns in circulation--were addressed, it would help keep them from the wrong hands by the sheer weight of the numbers.

When you ban guns for law abiding people who do not use them for crime.....criminals will still get them.....that is how it is all around the world.......the criminals have guns, normal people do not......

How?

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

I oppose the war on drugs, that has nothing to do with the discussion. Ironically though you just made my point with guns. Why don't you leave legal gun owners alone and go after the criminals who resell them and commit crimes with them? I mean attacking the actual problem? How un-liberal

 

[2aguy]

Semi automatic weapons automatically pull a new bullet into the chamber each time a bullet is fired. You don't have to do anything to reset the gun to discharge. So a good semiautomatic can deliver more bullets more quickly than a pump action weapon. I know that much. I realize that most handguns are manufactured the same way these days, but the gun manufacturers can certainly convert, if it means sales...
And please don't make fun of my probably not exact terminology above. I get the drift.

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Okay....what better gun control do you want...I want longer prison sentences...that actually works...that is how Japan does it....30 years for illegal possession...but it would have to be for an actual criminal...not some nurse who accidentally brings her lawfully permitted gun into New Jersey....

That is the problem with the anti-gunners.....

We've been in these thread before, you know I want gun owner control, rather than gun control. It amazes me that you have to tested and approved to drive a car in this country, but any moron with $200 can walk into a store , get verified as never having been arrested before , and walk out with a gun.

You know as well as I do that there are a LOT of people in this country who legally own guns who shouldn't be allowed to do so. and of course that doesn't even address the situation of the illegally owned guns in this country.

As for your example of New Jersey, I personally think a federal right to transport law should exist where a city or state can't negate your right to transport a weapon in your vehicle, provided it is unloaded and secured.

and the problem with this....is the same problem with background checks...the people you would license....would buy guns for criminals who currently can't buy a gun because they currently fail a background check.

Stop and frisk, is one way to stop criminals with guns.....allowing police the ability to search anyone, at any time for any reason without a court order would be another way to do this......even homes and businesses.....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Okay....what better gun control do you want...I want longer prison sentences...that actually works...that is how Japan does it....30 years for illegal possession...but it would have to be for an actual criminal...not some nurse who accidentally brings her lawfully permitted gun into New Jersey....

That is the problem with the anti-gunners.....

We've been in these thread before, you know I want gun owner control, rather than gun control. It amazes me that you have to tested and approved to drive a car in this country, but any moron with $200 can walk into a store , get verified as never having been arrested before , and walk out with a gun.

You know as well as I do that there are a LOT of people in this country who legally own guns who shouldn't be allowed to do so. and of course that doesn't even address the situation of the illegally owned guns in this country.

As for your example of New Jersey, I personally think a federal right to transport law should exist where a city or state can't negate your right to transport a weapon in your vehicle, provided it is unloaded and secured.

and the problem with this....is the same problem with background checks...the people you would license....would buy guns for criminals who currently can't buy a gun because they currently fail a background check.

Stop and frisk, is one way to stop criminals with guns.....allowing police the ability to search anyone, at any time for any reason without a court order would be another way to do this......even homes and businesses.....

And that would be just as unconstitutional as banning guns is.

The ONLY reasonable solution is a system that uses your DL , or state ID, to verify that you have in fact had a background check. If you encounter a police officer for ANY reason and are found in possession of a firearm without said background check 5 years in prison for each weapon you posses , regardless of any other factor (IE you are stopped for speeding, you have a gun in the car, the officer sees it and arrests you , even if later on it is PROVEN that the stop was not in good faith, that's a different subject altogether, you STILL get 5 years in prison for the illegal gun)

There is no reason to have a gun ban, there is no reason to register guns, there is no reason to search door to door, stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion is fine.

 

[kaz]

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

So you don't want to remove our right to defend ourselves, just limit it. Got it.

At some point are you going to address criminals or just keep going after the rights of honest citizens?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Old Lady apparently thinks an angry negro hell bent on murdering white cops would have went home and masturbated instead had he just not had been able to get a hold of a gun.

 

[OldLady]

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

 

[OldLady]

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

So you don't want to remove our right to defend ourselves, just limit it. Got it.

At some point are you going to address criminals or just keep going after the rights of honest citizens?

see the post I just put up

 

[OldLady]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.