Instead of background checks to buy a gun....

[Inthemiddle]

Japan has very few privately owned guns and they only had 11 shooting deaths in 2008. (The last year I can find a record for.)

I guess it's better that people be killed by knife instead. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, BTW.

We have a shitload of guns and had 11,000+ gun murders in 2012.

Switzerland. Explain Switzerland.

Guns are the problem, and we are like the retarded kid who writes "2+2=Cat" when everyone else got "4" as the answer.

No, the retarded kid is you. Because the problem is not "2+2" in the first place. Crime is not caused by guns. Do you get that? Guns do not cause crime. Things like poverty, poor education, low employment, lack of upward mobility in opportunities.....those are just some of the complex factors that contribute to crime.

You're obsessed. It's ridiculous and pathetic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

DUh, often by someone who didn't have a criminal record before that.

No one has guns, no gun deaths.

Problem solved.

Tell me are all crimes committed by someone who has had a record before?

And no guns just means more deaths by beatings, stabbings and other violence.

You cannot end violence or crime. You say you care about people yet you want to deny them the right to protect themselves.

Guns are only part of the problem causing crime in this country. We also have income inequality and a prison-industrial complex that locks up 2 million people for profit and makes our rime problem worse.

Again- Japan only locks up 69,000 people. They only had 258 murders total in 2008, 11 committed with gun. The US locks up 2,000,000 people, we had 16,000 murders, 11,000 committed with guns.

But you suggest, hey, maybe we can just follow Japan's example and get rid of the guns and have a social policy that takes care of everyone, we get fugnuts like you whining about "Freedom" and "the Constitution" and "the Founding Fathers"...


"2+2=Cat"! And don't you dare tell anyone different!

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't give a shit what other countries do or don't do I don't live in another country and I don't want to.

If you want to live in Japan be my guest.

So tell me how are you going to stop violence so people never need to protect themselves?

You can't seem to make up your mind where to start is it guns, is it corporations, is it prisons, so tell me where do you wave your magic wand to make everyone safe and secure.

Denial is not a place where I choose to live.

 

[JoeB131]

Japan has very few privately owned guns and they only had 11 shooting deaths in 2008. (The last year I can find a record for.)

I guess it's better that people be killed by knife instead. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, BTW. .

Yes, it does, because it has a society that considers suicide to be "honorable" and bringing shame to your family or society to be "dishonorable". Kind of hard to fight against a thousand years of tradition. They also aren't where we are on sexual equality or racial acceptance.

Doesn't mean they don't have it right on guns.

So let's just concede, we got it closer to right on some issue, they got it right on this one. The difference is, the Japanese are smart enough to accept ideas if they are to their advantage.

Americans--- we tend to be ignorant and proud of it for some reason.

Praise Jay-a-zus!

[

We have a shitload of guns and had 11,000+ gun murders in 2012.

[Switzerland. Explain Switzerland. .

A fantastically wealthy country with only 8 million people? Kind of like explaining the lack of gun deaths in the Vatican, isn't it?

[

Guns are the problem, and we are like the retarded kid who writes "2+2=Cat" when everyone else got "4" as the answer.

No, the retarded kid is you. Because the problem is not "2+2" in the first place. Crime is not caused by guns. Do you get that? Guns do not cause crime. Things like poverty, poor education, low employment, lack of upward mobility in opportunities.....those are just some of the complex factors that contribute to crime.

You're obsessed. It's ridiculous and pathetic.

.[/quote]

No, frankly, to be honest, I just see gun control as another way to bitch-slap the crazy right. Normally, I wouldn't give a shit.

 

[JoeB131]

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't give a shit what other countries do or don't do I don't live in another country and I don't want to.

If you want to live in Japan be my guest.

So tell me how are you going to stop violence so people never need to protect themselves?

You can't seem to make up your mind where to start is it guns, is it corporations, is it prisons, so tell me where do you wave your magic wand to make everyone safe and secure.

Denial is not a place where I choose to live.

If I spoke Japanese, I'd LOVE to live in Japan. The women there are HOT!!!!

But the point is, the violence exists because of the guns. And the economic inequality. ANd the fact that we have a corporate culture that throws gasoline on a fire.

All those issues SHOULD be addressed, and taking away the guns from the Bubba Rednecks is a part of the solution, really. Guns should be hard to get, hard to keep.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

What is the criminal background of the people that have been shooting up our schools and malls? Seems to me that the problem is not criminals, but crazies.

And at present, a crazy can get his hands on a weapon of war just as easily as you or I. Someone stated that there was no problem with regular people owning these weapons. I do believe the Nancy Lanza was a regular person. But her guns were used to kill 20 small children and 6 teachers.

No, criminals should not have guns. Period. But it is not the criminals that have been commiting the horrors we have seen all too frequently since Columbine.

 

[daveman]

Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments that went wrong.

The problem is that most of you don't need guns...

and a gun in the home is so dangerous that the NRA doesn't even want the CDC to study the problem.

Murder/suicides and domestic arguments gone wrong makes sense for lawful women to have guns.

No, it shows that we have too many guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them to start with...

But you and Daveman keep hiding behind the lady's skirts. "Oh, we are all about protecting the women!"

...says the guy who'd rather see them raped and murdered than defend themselves with a firearm.

I'm not about protecting women. I'm about women protecting themselves.

And you hate that idea.

 

[daveman]

Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments that went wrong.

The problem is that most of you don't need guns...

and a gun in the home is so dangerous that the NRA doesn't even want the CDC to study the problem.

Hey moron a domestic dispute that ends in a shooting is a violent crime. DUH

DUh, often by someone who didn't have a criminal record before that.

No one has guns, no gun deaths.

Problem solved.

Remember, folks: Someone killed by a murderer using a gun is MORE DEAD than someone killed with a blade, blunt instrument, or bare hands.

You really do believe that, don't you?

 

[JoeB131]

...says the guy who'd rather see them raped and murdered than defend themselves with a firearm.

I'm not about protecting women. I'm about women protecting themselves.

And you hate that idea.

Guy, the problem is, you want to live like a barbarian and then want your women to be barbarians, too.

The problem is, if everyone is armed, the barbarians ALWAYS beats the Civilized Person.

Just ask the Romans.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments that went wrong.

The problem is that most of you don't need guns...

and a gun in the home is so dangerous that the NRA doesn't even want the CDC to study the problem.

Hey moron a domestic dispute that ends in a shooting is a violent crime. DUH

DUh, often by someone who didn't have a criminal record before that.

No one has guns, no gun deaths.

Problem solved.

How EXACTLY are you going to take all the guns from the criminals? Explain that one for me.

 

[daveman]

...says the guy who'd rather see them raped and murdered than defend themselves with a firearm.

I'm not about protecting women. I'm about women protecting themselves.

And you hate that idea.

Guy, the problem is, you want to live like a barbarian and then want your women to be barbarians, too.

The problem is, if everyone is armed, the barbarians ALWAYS beats the Civilized Person.

Just ask the Romans.

You're just a poo-flinging monkey, aren't you?

Of course you are. You have no facts or logic on your side.

The news is full of civilized people defeating barbarians. That you willfully ignore those instances -- which occur far more often than the other way around -- does not alter the reality.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives.

I just don't know why you hate the idea so much. It's not out of any concern for humanity, that much is clear.

I expect it's because you don't want people to defend themselves from the oppressive government you desire.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

What a strange weird argument....

 

[PaulS1950]

Hey! I have a novel idea. Lets actually prosecute the folks who commit crimes.
We already have the laws on the books.
We already have the police agencies.
All we have to do is convince the prosecutors and judges to do the right thing and quit using plea bargains to save the court time and money. (which doesn't work because the criminals always come back into the system over and over)
Like a famous canadian contractor is fond of saying, "Do it right - the first time."

 

[jillian]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

 

[del]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

only if you're really, really stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

What a strange weird argument....

It might seem cleverly facetious but actually this thinking has already been tried.
See "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937".

Can't make this stuff up.

 

[JoeB131]

You're just a poo-flinging monkey, aren't you?

Of course you are. You have no facts or logic on your side.

The news is full of civilized people defeating barbarians. That you willfully ignore those instances -- which occur far more often than the other way around -- does not alter the reality.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives.

I just don't know why you hate the idea so much. It's not out of any concern for humanity, that much is clear.

I expect it's because you don't want people to defend themselves from the oppressive government you desire.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the home than a bad guy. This is proven, scientific fact.

The gun industry plays on your fears, and you've bought it hook line and sinker.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You're just a poo-flinging monkey, aren't you?

Of course you are. You have no facts or logic on your side.

The news is full of civilized people defeating barbarians. That you willfully ignore those instances -- which occur far more often than the other way around -- does not alter the reality.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives.

I just don't know why you hate the idea so much. It's not out of any concern for humanity, that much is clear.

I expect it's because you don't want people to defend themselves from the oppressive government you desire.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the home than a bad guy. This is proven, scientific fact.

The gun industry plays on your fears, and you've bought it hook line and sinker.

So tell me is there a chance that someone will break into my home intent of doing me or my wife harm?

Is there a chance my business will be robbed by someone who will put my employees in danger and also threaten my ability to provide for my family?

Until you can say there is absolutely zero chance of that happening I will keep a weapon

Besides being killed accidentally by a firearm isn't even in the top 5 leading causes of accidental death in the US

Why don't you worry about those before you try to confiscate weapons?

 

[jillian]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the home than a bad guy. This is proven, scientific fact.

The gun industry plays on your fears, and you've bought it hook line and sinker.

all that is true... and for all of that, the appropriate response is gun safety and education and tightening background checks so people know how to care for and store guns properly and those with histories of mental illness and domestic violence (or other criminal activity) don't get guns.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

I needed to rate this thread as terrible; maybe it was posted in jest, or simply to troll for fools - which it has accomplished, but that is all is accomplishes. A small business does a cursory background check when it requires an application for employment, a prudent person gets to know another's friends and family before marriage, yet a small number of people want to allow anyone to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

A background check does not go far enough; any who wants to own, possess, etc. a gun of any size needs both a background check and a license, a license renewable every 3-5 years. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause.

 

[Stephanie]

Why don't we just have background checks to commit a crime? I mean, the criminals are really the problem, right? Let's just require people to submit to a background check before they commit crimes, that way we can track them. Makes sense, right?

There's a rubber room for threads like this.

If you don't think a convicted pedophile should be barred from getting a job at a daycare center, or as your child's teacher,

if you don't think someone with multiple drunk driving convictions should prevented from getting a job as a school bus driver,

then you probably don't think that anyone convicted of a gun crime should be denied a gun permit, or a gun purchase,

because background checks are how we determine what those people's records are.

stupid, those a jobs people WORK IN
buying a gun for hunting or protection isn't the damn same..but you brown shirts won't be happy until you infringe on law abiding people rights except when it comes to abortions