Knee-deep in blood: We are all being held hostage by Wayne LaPierre’s children

[2aguy]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

'And still people run red lights and drive when drunk. Yeah, a point that means nothing - laws don't prevent crime. To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?



.

What is it you anti gun extremist don't get.....

To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?

You have laws so that when someone breaks them they can be arrested and jailed so they don't hurt others.......you guys seem to want guns to be treated differently from all other crimes......right now...this moment...today....if you use a gun to commit a crime you are arrested and put in jail....no licensing of anyone is required....

Right now, this moment, today...if you are a felon, and you are caught with a gun you can be arrested and put in jail....no licensing is required to do this....right now......this moment....today........

more paperwork to license people who don't break the law is meaningless.....they haven't broken the law and can't be arrested and jailed till they do....

What about the simple mechanics of that process do you not get.......?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

'And still people run red lights and drive when drunk. Yeah, a point that means nothing - laws don't prevent crime. To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?



.

What is it you anti gun extremist don't get.....

To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?

You have laws so that when someone breaks them they can be arrested and jailed so they don't hurt others.......you guys seem to want guns to be treated differently from all other crimes......right now...this moment...today....if you use a gun to commit a crime you are arrested and put in jail....no licensing of anyone is required....

Right now, this moment, today...if you are a felon, and you are caught with a gun you can be arrested and put in jail....no licensing is required to do this....right now......this moment....today........

more paperwork to license people who don't break the law is meaningless.....they haven't broken the law and can't be arrested and jailed till they do....

What about the simple mechanics of that process do you not get.......?

Answer my question: Laws do not prevent crimes, do you believe penal codes are meaningless and worthless pieces of paper? Yes or No!

 

[M14 Shooter]

How much more of a reach would it be, if any, for each state to have the authority to require any person who wanted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun a license? Or any city or county?

Licensing gun owners violates their rights.
Licensing gun owners does not prevent gun-related crime
Thus
There's no sound reason to license gun owners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Answer my question: Laws do not prevent crimes, do you believe penal codes are meaningless and worthless pieces of paper? Yes or No!

Laws exist to punish people after they commit an act; they cannot prevent a crime from happening.
As such, there is absolutely no sense to pass a law with the intent to prevent crime.
Laws like... all the gun control laws you want to add.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

Why do you refuse to have an open and honest debate about gun control?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Licensure violates the rights of the gun owner.
Licensure does not prevent gun-related crime
Thus
There;s no sound argument for licensure.
(where have I heard this before?)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license

How does suspending my driver's license prevent me from driving drunk?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world
Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

Only if you want to argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Here, however, is a fact you and the rest of the anti-gun loons refuse to consider:
~99.99712% of the guns in the US are NOT involved in a murder each year.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Licensing gun owners violates their rights.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Considering that Mexico has stricter gun laws than the US but a higher per capita homicide rate, yes.

So you envision comparing our crime to countries like Mexico rather than countries like Canada, England, France, Italy, Germany or Japan?

That is the United States you strive for?
Better than Mexico?

I never said that my moronic little friend. I was simply countering your numbnutted friends comment about places with stricter gun laws having lower homicide rates.

Actually, you were countering nothing

Mexico has tougher gun laws in response to a rampant drug and crime rate
They do not have rampant drug and crime rate BECAUSE of their tight gun laws

You're an idiot.

I'm not the one celebrating that we have a murder rate lower than Mexico

Celebrating? Dude, you need to purchase a dictionary.

 

[hunarcy]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

'And still people run red lights and drive when drunk. Yeah, a point that means nothing - laws don't prevent crime. To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?



.

What is it you anti gun extremist don't get.....

To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?

You have laws so that when someone breaks them they can be arrested and jailed so they don't hurt others.......you guys seem to want guns to be treated differently from all other crimes......right now...this moment...today....if you use a gun to commit a crime you are arrested and put in jail....no licensing of anyone is required....

Right now, this moment, today...if you are a felon, and you are caught with a gun you can be arrested and put in jail....no licensing is required to do this....right now......this moment....today........

more paperwork to license people who don't break the law is meaningless.....they haven't broken the law and can't be arrested and jailed till they do....

What about the simple mechanics of that process do you not get.......?

Answer my question: Laws do not prevent crimes, do you believe penal codes are meaningless and worthless pieces of paper? Yes or No!

Penal codes are GREAT for punishing those who infringe on the rights of others. They do nothing to prevent future crimes except as a deterrent.

 

[hunarcy]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

'And still people run red lights and drive when drunk. Yeah, a point that means nothing - laws don't prevent crime. To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?



.

Why don't you try something different and be honest? If you compare the United States to the rest of the world, there are 90 countries that have a higher homicide rate than we have. It's not firearms that is the problem, because most of those 90 nations that have higher murder rates than we have restrict firearms the way you hope to inspire us to restrict them...it does no good.

Until you start being more honest, there's little point in taking your posts seriously.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Penal codes are GREAT for punishing those who infringe on the rights of others. They do nothing to prevent future crimes except as a deterrent.

Correct.
Obviously, anyone not deterred by murders laws will not be deterred by gun control laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until you start being more honest, there's little point in taking your posts seriously.

WC whines and cries about wanting an open and honest discussion about gun control,. but then runs away once he finds one.

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps are scum --

Ace of Spades HQ

Meanwhile, the left and the media -- but I repeat myself -- continues to pretend that Bill Ayers was just a political reformer with a hobbyist interest in watches, batteries, and fertilizer.

Q: What's the difference between Bill Ayers and Dylann Roof?
A: Dylann Roof isn't a friend and colleague of an American president who enjoyed a cushy life in academia before retiring to life as the kind of author who's invited on-the-air by the mainstream media to hawk his books.

Other than that, both of these pigs share much in common.

Bill Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Dylann Roof is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Bill Ayers despises America.

Dylann Roof despises America.

Bill Ayers’s terror group The Weather Underground targeted and murdered innocent people.

Dylann Roof targeted and murdered innocent people.

Bill Ayers used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Dylann Roof used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Bill Ayers wanted a race war.

Dylann Roof wants a race war.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

'And still people run red lights and drive when drunk. Yeah, a point that means nothing - laws don't prevent crime. To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?



.

Why don't you try something different and be honest? If you compare the United States to the rest of the world, there are 90 countries that have a higher homicide rate than we have. It's not firearms that is the problem, because most of those 90 nations that have higher murder rates than we have restrict firearms the way you hope to inspire us to restrict them...it does no good.

Until you start being more honest, there's little point in taking your posts seriously.

Ironic that you abuse the term honesty while dishonestly comparing the USA to 3rd world nations instead of westernized nations which are it's peers.

 

[Edgetho]

Ironic that you abuse the term honesty while dishonestly comparing the USA to 3rd world nations instead of westernized nations which are it's peers.

Why aren't you honest and admit that when we remove minorities from the Statistics we are even lower than Western Europe.

Just a fact.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a minority problem.

Just a fact.

Now hurl an epithet like the good little Alinskyite you are and run away.

scumbag piece of fucking shit

 

[Edgetho]

Black America s real problem isn t white racism

In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.

dimocraps are scum

 

[Edgetho]

What about interracial crime, white-on-black attacks and the reverse?

After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”

Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?

dimocraps are scum

fucking period

 

[CowboyTed]

There is no evidence that any gun control regulation will reduce gun violence.

Except it does in every other 1st world country...