Poll: What should we do with guns?

[Lumpy 1]

Great find there Againsheila... thanks

 

[FA_Q2]

What should "we" do with guns. Is that the question?

Well, something like 20 of our fellow citizens will put their gun either in their mouth or against their temple and pull the trigger. Called suicide.

Is that what you are thinking?

Or yesterday, the dad in PA figured out what to do with his gun. Read all about it in the news. The "gun accident" wasn't pretty. Kids dead, dads devastated.

Why don't you post links about all the crimes that were stopped by gun owners yesterday. Must be hundreds of claims, you know with millions of crimes being stopped every year by gun owners.

I already did and you chose to ignore it. Why would anyone bother to repost it if you can't respond to the first time that the information was made available to you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW individuals in this case would exclude those who are mentally ill or criminals.

Both mentally ill and criminals can buy anything they want right now.

So can alien terrorists and illegals.

Either that's okay wit rw's or there needs to be some way to control that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Great find there Againsheila... thanks

Be glad a cop was near by because, as usual, no civilian was going to help.

 

[Olivia]

From the poll: How has letting individuals buy anything worked thus far?

 

[Lumpy 1]

BTW individuals in this case would exclude those who are mentally ill or criminals.

Both mentally ill and criminals can buy anything they want right now.

So can alien terrorists and illegals.

Either that's okay wit rw's or there needs to be some way to control that.

What's even more terrifying is that liberal Democrats have 66.6% of the national leadership control and now you tell me that even lib Dems (mentally ill and criminals) can buy guns...

 

[francoHFW]

BTW individuals in this case would exclude those who are mentally ill or criminals.

Both mentally ill and criminals can buy anything they want right now.

So can alien terrorists and illegals.

Either that's okay wit rw's or there needs to be some way to control that.

What's even more terrifying is that liberal Democrats have 66.6% of the national leadership control and now you tell me that even lib Dems (mentally ill and criminals) can buy guns...

40% of sales have no background checks- gunshows. private dealers, and Red states, thanks to idiot Pubs and silly dupes. of course.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Both mentally ill and criminals can buy anything they want right now.

So can alien terrorists and illegals.

Either that's okay wit rw's or there needs to be some way to control that.

What's even more terrifying is that liberal Democrats have 66.6% of the national leadership control and now you tell me that even lib Dems (mentally ill and criminals) can buy guns...

40% of sales have no background checks- gunshows. private dealers, and Red states, thanks to idiot Pubs and silly dupes. of course.

Those 26 dead folks from Sandy Hook were under the protection of some of the most stringent gun laws in the NATION when they were murdered.

They weren't in a 'Red state', either...

Is there ANYTHING you're proposing that would change that?

 

[francoHFW]

What's even more terrifying is that liberal Democrats have 66.6% of the national leadership control and now you tell me that even lib Dems (mentally ill and criminals) can buy guns...

40% of sales have no background checks- gunshows. private dealers, and Red states, thanks to idiot Pubs and silly dupes. of course.

Those 26 dead folks from Sandy Hook were under the protection of some of the most stringent gun laws in the NATION when they were murdered.

They weren't in a 'Red state', either...

Is there ANYTHING you're proposing that would change that?

Banning assault rifles and oversize clips (and adding mental health into O-care?)? YUP.

 

[GuyPinestra]

40% of sales have no background checks- gunshows. private dealers, and Red states, thanks to idiot Pubs and silly dupes. of course.

Those 26 dead folks from Sandy Hook were under the protection of some of the most stringent gun laws in the NATION when they were murdered.

They weren't in a 'Red state', either...

Is there ANYTHING you're proposing that would change that?

Banning assault rifles and oversize clips (and adding mental health into O-care?)? YUP.

Again with 'assault rifle'?

What FUNCTIONAL difference is there between this 'assault weapon' and my 30-06 semi auto deer rifle?

And what do you consider an 'oversize clip'? (I think you mean 'magazine', not 'clip'...)

 

[9thIDdoc]

No, it doesn't, note i said "gun crime" not crime.

The majority of criminals buy their guns from legitimate dealers, who either get duped into selling to them, or who sell knowing its illegal.

No dealers= less guns

It would take time, but in 20 years, gun crime would be way down. Again, crime involving a gun.

...and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

Guns were banned at Sandy Hook and it didn't prevent anything. Just more evidence that gun control laws don't prevent crime and may even encourage it. There are far too many firearms already here, and they are far too durable, for a ban to reduce access seriously without removing the ones people already own which would:
1. Be impossible
2. Start a bloodbath

If the shooters mother didn't own guns, he wouldnt have been able to use her weapons to shoot up the school.

Right. And if guns had never been invented his mother wouldn't have had one.
Why bring up lawful ownership? If gun control laws worked he wouldn't haven't been
able to shoot up the the school with his mother's or anyone else's gun becuse it was illegal for him to have any gun there. It should be obvious that more ineffective laws are not a viable solution and fail to even adress the actual security failure.

 

[AmyNation]

...and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

Guns were banned at Sandy Hook and it didn't prevent anything. Just more evidence that gun control laws don't prevent crime and may even encourage it. There are far too many firearms already here, and they are far too durable, for a ban to reduce access seriously without removing the ones people already own which would:
1. Be impossible
2. Start a bloodbath

If the shooters mother didn't own guns, he wouldnt have been able to use her weapons to shoot up the school.

Right. And if guns had never been invented his mother wouldn't have had one.
Why bring up lawful ownership? If gun control laws worked he wouldn't haven't been
able to shoot up the the school with his mother's or anyone else's gun becuse it was illegal for him to have any gun there. It should be obvious that more ineffective laws are not a viable solution and fail to even adress the actual security failure.

Because in my 1st post, I stated if guns were completely banned sandy hook wouldnt have happened.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the shooters mother didn't own guns, he wouldnt have been able to use her weapons to shoot up the school.

Right. And if guns had never been invented his mother wouldn't have had one.
Why bring up lawful ownership? If gun control laws worked he wouldn't haven't been
able to shoot up the the school with his mother's or anyone else's gun becuse it was illegal for him to have any gun there. It should be obvious that more ineffective laws are not a viable solution and fail to even adress the actual security failure.

Because in my 1st post, I stated if guns were completely banned sandy hook wouldnt have happened.

You do realize in the last ban they still had mass shootings at school?

 

[AmyNation]

Right. And if guns had never been invented his mother wouldn't have had one.
Why bring up lawful ownership? If gun control laws worked he wouldn't haven't been
able to shoot up the the school with his mother's or anyone else's gun becuse it was illegal for him to have any gun there. It should be obvious that more ineffective laws are not a viable solution and fail to even adress the actual security failure.

Because in my 1st post, I stated if guns were completely banned sandy hook wouldnt have happened.

You do realize in the last ban they still had mass shootings at school?

Yes.

But I meant a total ban. Not just specific types.

 

[AmyNation]

Banning guns, would severely curtail the number of gun crimes, in time ,and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

That being said, I dont think banning guns or banning types of guns, is the answer.

Just a refresher on what my statement was.

 

[9thIDdoc]

It will reduce gun crime.

Look at any country where guns are completely illegal, their gun crime is nothing like ours. Again, I have never said all gun crime will disappear, of course criminals will find ways to get guns, but it won't be as easy as it is now, hence the dramatic drop in gun crime.

"Gun crime" is meaningless term that some people use in an effort to demonize firearms and those enjoy them. "Gun crime" figures used to lump murder, accidents, defenceive shootings and suicide together as the same thing and it is an intellectually dishonest term.

Most guns last almost forever and may change hands many times bought, sold, given, highly modified, and inherited dozens of times over dozens of decades. There are many guns well over hundred years old still as functional as the day they were made. New guns bought from a gunshop are the exception rather than the rule so trying to keep track of sales has very little impact on availabity.

 

[francoHFW]

Those 26 dead folks from Sandy Hook were under the protection of some of the most stringent gun laws in the NATION when they were murdered.

They weren't in a 'Red state', either...

Is there ANYTHING you're proposing that would change that?

Banning assault rifles and oversize clips (and adding mental health into O-care?)? YUP.

Again with 'assault rifle'?

What FUNCTIONAL difference is there between this 'assault weapon' and my 30-06 semi auto deer rifle?


And what do you consider an 'oversize clip'? (I think you mean 'magazine', not 'clip'...)

Same as the last time, without loopholes,and clips over 10 bullets...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because in my 1st post, I stated if guns were completely banned sandy hook wouldnt have happened.

You do realize in the last ban they still had mass shootings at school?

Yes.

But I meant a total ban. Not just specific types.

A total ban? How do you suggest that be enforced? Are you ready for a high body count?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Banning guns, would severely curtail the number of gun crimes, in time ,and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

That being said, I dont think banning guns or banning types of guns, is the answer.

Just a refresher on what my statement was.

The problem is that your statemen tis simply incorrect. There is no reason to believe banning guns would have had either effect.

 

[asterism]

It will reduce gun crime.

Look at any country where guns are completely illegal, their gun crime is nothing like ours. Again, I have never said all gun crime will disappear, of course criminals will find ways to get guns, but it won't be as easy as it is now, hence the dramatic drop in gun crime.

"Easy" is the key word here.

All Adam Lanza had to do was raid his mother's gun shelf. All Jovan Belcher had to do was decide which of his eight (eight!) guns to use. All Jacob Roberts had to do was steal an AR-15 from a friend. All Harris and Klebold had to do was buy from two unlicensed sellers. The basic problem isn't so much that guns are deadly; it's that they're everywhere.

What sets gun violence apart is not anything to do with Constitutional issues or self-defense... it's spontaneity -- it's done in an instant on the slightest whim and a few seconds later there's no turning back (which explains why all of these guys and so many others make themselves the last cadaver when they're finally cornered. This is why the tired old argument that "people kill by other methods" doesn't work. No other method is this quick. And in a society based on instant gratification, that's crucial.

And I might add, that sort of spontaneity simply did not exist in the 18th Century when the Second Amendment was written. They had no concept of concealed pistols, drive-bys, automatic weapons, even the accuracy of the Minie ball hadn't yet been invented. It's impossible to make the argument that what the 2nd Amendment addressed had anything remotely to do with protecting the right of events like Newtown, Clackamas, and Tucson to take place.

They had no concept of the Internet either. Should the 1st Amendment not apply here?