CDZ If they ever did ban and confiscate guns here, what would actually happen?

[2aguy]

I heard the actual call to the FBI where the caller stated she was in contact with the shooter and that his general threats about doing a mass shooting had changed to he was going to do one....and they ignored her....

And what federal law were they supposed to arrest him under, the "Your Neighbor is Really, Really Scared of You Act of 1974"

If we arrested people for saying crazy thing on the internet out of context, we could round up half the membership of USMB.

He threatened to kill himself.....local police ignored this......they should have put him in the hospital for 24 hours evalutaion...they didn't...

Here is the actual transcript of the call to the FBI when the locals failed to act...

http://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2018/02/23/fbi-transcripts/assets/fbi-transcript.pdf

The caller states the shooter said he wanted to kill people........and he had gone out and bought guns......this was called into the FBI and they ignored it....and that he killed animals ....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why would the government confiscate your guns? That is dumb and will never happen.

Put a tax on ammo. A $25.00 or $50.00 per bullet tax would do the trick. It could be used to offset Trump's infrastructure initiative.

You would also see gun crime plummet.

Cuz nobody would figure out how to reload ammunition.

When I was shooting competitively, I would put upwards of 25,000 rounds down range in a single year. Never once did I purchase a new round of ammunition. 100% reused brass and reclaimed lead.

They never thought of that ...

 

[eflatminor]

Why would the government confiscate your guns? That is dumb and will never happen.

Put a tax on ammo. A $25.00 or $50.00 per bullet tax would do the trick. It could be used to offset Trump's infrastructure initiative.

You would also see gun crime plummet.

Cuz nobody would figure out how to reload ammunition.

When I was shooting competitively, I would put upwards of 25,000 rounds down range in a single year. Never once did I purchase a new round of ammunition. 100% reused brass and reclaimed lead.

Fine let everyone do that for their ammo. Let's do the tax.

Sure, 'cuz poor people should be prevented defending themselves. Great plan.

Of course, this will surely flummox the bad guys. No way they'll figure out how to obtain ammo on a black market or anything.

Think before you post.

 

[Circe]

...most of the guns used in crime in Mexico come from here, not the other way around. The Mexicans have been begging us for years to do something about it.

Poor babies. We've been begging THEM for years to stop running heroin, cocaine, meth, and fentanyl into our country, but do they stop it?

No. We'll stop supplying them with guns if they stop running in drugs.

 

[Circe]

That is an easy question.....our criminals are currently more violent and willing to kill more often and easily than the criminals in other countries....we are also on the border with the Narco state of Mexico where the drug cartels and the Mexican police and military already murder their citizens in the 10s of thousands every single year....

Blood would run in the streets......innocent blood.

Americans use their guns on average 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack....if guns were banned, those attacks would be completed, not stopped......

We can already see in Britain where violent crime rates, and gun crime rates are going up...our violent crime rates would sky rocket...and it would spread....

You are basically saying that a ban on guns would have the same consequences as a ban on alcohol did or the "War on Drugs" did --- gangs, crime, organized crime, illegal running of the prohibited thing, lots of shootings and deaths and a healthy black market and connivance by the regular citizens who become scofflaws.

I don't think so. It's a good point, but this is way too big and tied in with major security issues a lot of regular people are worried about. It would start a civil war, or the other overthrow possibilities --- coup d'état or secessions.

 

[sartre play]

Just hype, stir the pot BS. about 10% or less of the population want guns banned.
focus on what if any thing can be done to reduce killings.
real gun people need to speak out about untrained idiots with guns.

 

[2aguy]

Just hype, stir the pot BS. about 10% or less of the population want guns banned.
focus on what if any thing can be done to reduce killings.
real gun people need to speak out about untrained idiots with guns.

The 10% is the leadership of the democrat party and their Presidential candidates appoint judges......the ones currently ignoring the rulings in Heller, Caetano, Miller, Murdoch.....

And their minions at the CNN town hall made it clear they want to ban all semi automatic guns.....

 

[JoeB131]

The 10% is the leadership of the democrat party and their Presidential candidates appoint judges......the ones currently ignoring the rulings in Heller, Caetano, Miller, Murdoch.....

And their minions at the CNN town hall made it clear they want to ban all semi automatic guns..

Here's the real number you should be worried about.

Big Corporations are getting fed up with the gun culture.

Hey, remember when the big corporations changed their minds on gay marriage, and decided to start offering domestic partner benefits and started telling states with homophobic laws that they wouldn't get business.

It's amazing how fast the courts and the states followed their lead.

 

[Circe]

Big Corporations are getting fed up with the gun culture.

Hey, remember when the big corporations changed their minds on gay marriage, and decided to start offering domestic partner benefits and started telling states with homophobic laws that they wouldn't get business.

It's amazing how fast the courts and the states followed their lead.

To a point, but they can go too far. Target somehow thought it would be a GOOD idea to sacrifice all its female shoppers by welcoming in to women's restrooms and changing rooms men pretending to be women.

A lot of people, me included, signed the pledge never to shop at Target again. We have two in our county. I never will go to either again. Target profits and stock went down and have never recovered to this day.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is an easy question.....our criminals are currently more violent and willing to kill more often and easily than the criminals in other countries....we are also on the border with the Narco state of Mexico where the drug cartels and the Mexican police and military already murder their citizens in the 10s of thousands every single year....

Blood would run in the streets......innocent blood.

I see why you'd wan to hide in the CDZ for this one

Our problem isn't "Criminals', it's regular folks having a bad day who are responsible for most of the suicides, domestic violence, mass shootings and accidents because people who have no business owning a gun have easy access to them.

Also, most of the guns used in crime in Mexico come from here, not the other way around. The Mexicans have been begging us for years to do something about it.

Americans use their guns on average 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack....if guns were banned, those attacks would be completed, not stopped......

That seems fairly improbable.

First, if you have 1.5 million DGUs, but only 200 justified homicides with guns, that means that lethal force is only applied one out of 7500 times a gun is pulled out. That seems like a real lot of restraint, and it doesn't pass the laugh test.

You would have to believe there are more DGU's than actual crimes.

It wouldn't go like that....the democrats are too smart for that....they would simply pass the law, and then, one by one they would pick off normal gun owners, make a big show of destroying their lives and scare everyone but the hard core into turning into their guns...then, the democrats in the media would declare the rest of the gun owners monsters and terrorists....giving the democrats even more power to use force when they found someone with a gun...

Works for me.

Here's the thing, guy. You are already losing the culture war on guns. Big corporations are turning on the NRA, because they've gotten fed up with the gun culture that makes them have to hire security guards, put in cameras and security doors and do Active Shooter Drills.

You see, when the Active Shooter creates a bunch of vacancies like this nut just did at the VA home, the gun industry can't be held liable, but the employers can. There has to be a point where big corporations look at that and say, "Um, yeah, maybe we shouldn't be turning our businesses into fortresses."
.

More bullshit

2\3 of all people who commit murder have criminal recirds

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest
record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a
felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of
those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest
record.

 

[JoeB131]

More bullshit

2\3 of all people who commit murder have criminal recirds

which is a meaningless statistic.

According to your own post.

Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active
criminal justice status at the time of their arrest.
This included 18% on probation, 12% on release
pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on
parole.

Further-

Those convicted of murder(36%)or felony assault(35%)
were the next most likely to have had an active
criminal justice status when arrested. Fifteen
percent of murderers were on probation, 13% were
on pretrial release, and 8% were on parole. Nineteen
percent of those later convicted of assault were on
probation when arrested, 11% on pretrial release,
and 6% on parole.

Key word here, buddy- Active.

Which meant that the other 64% of them did not have active criminal justice status. Maybe they got arrested for something minor some time when they were young, but they were 'law abiding citizens' at the time of their murder.

A regular person who just had a bad day.

And easy access to a gun.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

More bullshit

2\3 of all people who commit murder have criminal recirds

which is a meaningless statistic.

According to your own post.

Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active
criminal justice status at the time of their arrest.
This included 18% on probation, 12% on release
pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on
parole.

Further-

Those convicted of murder(36%)or felony assault(35%)
were the next most likely to have had an active
criminal justice status when arrested. Fifteen
percent of murderers were on probation, 13% were
on pretrial release, and 8% were on parole. Nineteen
percent of those later convicted of assault were on
probation when arrested, 11% on pretrial release,
and 6% on parole.

Key word here, buddy- Active.

Which meant that the other 64% of them did not have active criminal justice status. Maybe they got arrested for something minor some time when they were young, but they were 'law abiding citizens' at the time of their murder.

A regular person who just had a bad day.

And easy access to a gun.

People often have bad days, yet most never think of picking up a gun.

Logic therefore dictates that the catalyst is not simply "having a bad day".

 

[Skull Pilot]

More bullshit

2\3 of all people who commit murder have criminal recirds

which is a meaningless statistic.

According to your own post.

Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active
criminal justice status at the time of their arrest.
This included 18% on probation, 12% on release
pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on
parole.

Further-

Those convicted of murder(36%)or felony assault(35%)
were the next most likely to have had an active
criminal justice status when arrested. Fifteen
percent of murderers were on probation, 13% were
on pretrial release, and 8% were on parole. Nineteen
percent of those later convicted of assault were on
probation when arrested, 11% on pretrial release,
and 6% on parole.

Key word here, buddy- Active.

Which meant that the other 64% of them did not have active criminal justice status. Maybe they got arrested for something minor some time when they were young, but they were 'law abiding citizens' at the time of their murder.

A regular person who just had a bad day.

And easy access to a gun.

Yes we all know it's meaningless because you are fucking wrong again

most murders are not the first crime committed by the murderer.

You are constantly given actual facts with links as proof yet yet you choose to believe only the things you make up

So if we use your definition of law abiding then all convicted felons who have served their time are now law abiding citizens and should be allowed to buy a gun just like any other law abiding citizen

So I'll say it one more time most people who commit murder are not committing their first crime

 

[Vastator]

That is an easy question.....our criminals are currently more violent and willing to kill more often and easily than the criminals in other countries....we are also on the border with the Narco state of Mexico where the drug cartels and the Mexican police and military already murder their citizens in the 10s of thousands every single year....

Blood would run in the streets......innocent blood.

Americans use their guns on average 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack....if guns were banned, those attacks would be completed, not stopped......

We can already see in Britain where violent crime rates, and gun crime rates are going up...our violent crime rates would sky rocket...and it would spread....

If they tried to take the guns, they’d end up taking bullets instead...

 

[JoeB131]

People often have bad days, yet most never think of picking up a gun.

Logic therefore dictates that the catalyst is not simply "having a bad day".

Well, that's all good and stuff. MOst people who drive drunk get home safely, too, but it's not that we should be letting them do it.

So if we use your definition of law abiding then all convicted felons who have served their time are now law abiding citizens and should be allowed to buy a gun just like any other law abiding citizen

Well, by your logic that gun ownership is a "right", why shouldn't they be? We weren't even talking about convicted felons. We were talking about 'arrest records". Most people with an arrest record don't get convicted of anything and they aren't violent.

If they tried to take the guns, they’d end up taking bullets instead...

I love how these same people who say "Blue Lives Matter" would be the first one to shoot LEO if the country changed its mind about gun ownership.

 

[PredFan]

That is an easy question.....our criminals are currently more violent and willing to kill more often and easily than the criminals in other countries....we are also on the border with the Narco state of Mexico where the drug cartels and the Mexican police and military already murder their citizens in the 10s of thousands every single year....

Blood would run in the streets......innocent blood.

Americans use their guns on average 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack....if guns were banned, those attacks would be completed, not stopped......

We can already see in Britain where violent crime rates, and gun crime rates are going up...our violent crime rates would sky rocket...and it would spread....

If they try, I will not comply.

 

[PredFan]

Americans are not Australians or Euros. There is no way to enforce a national ban here. An actual attempt would cause an armed uprising of enormous proportions.

It wouldn't go like that....the democrats are too smart for that....they would simply pass the law, and then, one by one they would pick off normal gun owners, make a big show of destroying their lives and scare everyone but the hard core into turning into their guns...then, the democrats in the media would declare the rest of the gun owners monsters and terrorists....giving the democrats even more power to use force when they found someone with a gun...

But what they want to do, what their plan is, is "death by 1000 papercuts".A time will come where you can have your guns, but you can't use them for anything.

 

[JoeB131]

But what they want to do, what their plan is, is "death by 1000 papercuts".A time will come where you can have your guns, but you can't use them for anything.

That works, too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

People often have bad days, yet most never think of picking up a gun.

Logic therefore dictates that the catalyst is not simply "having a bad day".

Well, that's all good and stuff. MOst people who drive drunk get home safely, too, but it's not that we should be letting them do it.

So if we use your definition of law abiding then all convicted felons who have served their time are now law abiding citizens and should be allowed to buy a gun just like any other law abiding citizen

Well, by your logic that gun ownership is a "right", why shouldn't they be? We weren't even talking about convicted felons. We were talking about 'arrest records". Most people with an arrest record don't get convicted of anything and they aren't violent.

If they tried to take the guns, they’d end up taking bullets instead...

I love how these same people who say "Blue Lives Matter" would be the first one to shoot LEO if the country changed its mind about gun ownership.

The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed

Yeah the constitution says it's a right

And do you care to back up your claims with some actual proof?

The fact is 2/3 of all murderers are not first time offenders as you claim
And another fact is that most murder victims also have criminal records

and if murderers are as you say all first time offenders then why is it that 70% of all murders occur in just 5% of all the counties in the country?

Our murder rate outside of the ultra
violent urban areas of these few counties is not much different than any of those European utopias you love so much and in fact 54% of counties have an annual murder rate of virtually zero

So you really don't care about the murder rates as much as you want to disarm everyone

 

[Vastator]

People often have bad days, yet most never think of picking up a gun.

Logic therefore dictates that the catalyst is not simply "having a bad day".

Well, that's all good and stuff. MOst people who drive drunk get home safely, too, but it's not that we should be letting them do it.

So if we use your definition of law abiding then all convicted felons who have served their time are now law abiding citizens and should be allowed to buy a gun just like any other law abiding citizen

Well, by your logic that gun ownership is a "right", why shouldn't they be? We weren't even talking about convicted felons. We were talking about 'arrest records". Most people with an arrest record don't get convicted of anything and they aren't violent.

If they tried to take the guns, they’d end up taking bullets instead...

I love how these same people who say "Blue Lives Matter" would be the first one to shoot LEO if the country changed its mind about gun ownership.

Certain traitors get quarter from you? You lack conviction...
You sound as bad as the leftists who hid behind dead, and traumatized kids from the most recent school shooting. Shocked that we’d still take them on... Anytime, anyplace. No sanctuary, quarter, or safe space for gun grabbers. Ever...