Poll: What should we do with guns?

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Great! If you know a way to do that let's hear it. Otherwise give the whining a rest.

 

[francoHFW]

Just had a thing on Nightline about wearing guns in bars in Va....INSANITY. LOL


NOW being turned around.

 

[AmyNation]

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?

I dont. I dont think its a good idea, and im not advocating for it.

I can recognize that totally outlawing guns, would do exactly what gun ban advocates claim, reduce gun crime and would have provented sandy hook, without thinking gun bans are a good idea.

 

[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.

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

Gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is a world away from us and the sandy hook shooter stole his gun from a legal gun owner.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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?

I dont. I dont think its a good idea, and im not advocating for it.

I can recognize that totally outlawing guns, would do exactly what gun ban advocates claim, reduce gun crime and would have provented sandy hook, without thinking gun bans are a good idea.

But it's still untrue.

 

[AmyNation]

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

I dont. I dont think its a good idea, and im not advocating for it.

I can recognize that totally outlawing guns, would do exactly what gun ban advocates claim, reduce gun crime and would have provented sandy hook, without thinking gun bans are a good idea.

But it's still untrue.

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I dont. I dont think its a good idea, and im not advocating for it.

I can recognize that totally outlawing guns, would do exactly what gun ban advocates claim, reduce gun crime and would have provented sandy hook, without thinking gun bans are a good idea.

But it's still untrue.

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

It is an illusion brought about by focusing on guns.

 

[FA_Q2]

I dont. I dont think its a good idea, and im not advocating for it.

I can recognize that totally outlawing guns, would do exactly what gun ban advocates claim, reduce gun crime and would have provented sandy hook, without thinking gun bans are a good idea.

But it's still untrue.

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

I already PROVED that so called 'coincidence' is utterly false. I posted all of the relevant information and you have ignored it. You have brought zero evidence to state otherwise. Take a look at the damn data. It completely disagrees with what you are stating and yet, you continue to cling to this idea.

 

[oreo]

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

Current laws already exclude them.

That's precisely why I wasn't including them. But I figured clarification would be good since i couldnt fit all that in a poll.

How do we determine who's crazy? The last 3 mass shootings--all were done by young introvert males that were bat shit crazy--but who didn't have any prior criminal record. The Aurora Theater shooting--the "crazy" was able to purchase all of his weapons--he was the registered owner of these assault weapons.

I believe in the 2nd amendment--and that Americans have the right to own a gun for the "protection" of themselves and their families--BUT--I don't think military type assault weapons are the answer to self defense--unless you plan on getting attacked by hundred's of people at once--

So the question then becomes how do we keep these guns out of the hands of the bat shit crazy--(those with no prior criminal records)--and out of the hands of young introvert type males that continually commit these type of horrific mass murders--using military type assault weapons?

My solution is:

I think that anyone that owns or plans on buying a military type assault rifle--pistol or other should also be required to purchase a multi-million dollar insurance liability policy on the gun--along with a notarized statement--indicating that they will be the only person that will be using the gun--and also prove that they have a bomb proof gun safe in their home--that the gun will be kept--and that they will be the only one that has access to that safe. If the owner eventually wants to sell this weapon they have to sell it to a licensed gun shop. If the gun is stolen or lost the registered owner assumes all responsibility for the damage and death done to others. Those that do not follow the above--if caught--the gun is confiscated--and a hefty fine is placed on the person who is in possession of this type weapon. Also no more gun shows--where guns can be bought by anyone--with no I.D. and no background check.

This should take some of the macho interest out of these type weapons. If they've just got to shoot these guns then they can join the military. The military keeps track and locks their assault weapons up--so the public should be required to do the same.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I dont. I dont think its a good idea, and im not advocating for it.

I can recognize that totally outlawing guns, would do exactly what gun ban advocates claim, reduce gun crime and would have provented sandy hook, without thinking gun bans are a good idea.

But it's still untrue.

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

Are you actually going to read my post this time? I am saying:
1. That this country is satuated with guns and it is physically impossibe to change that no matter what law is passed.
2. That trying to make any comparisons useing "gun crime" is meaningless. Violent crime is violent crime.
3. Gun control laws were in place at sandy hook and helped not at all. It's pretty idiotic to think that adding more will help anything.
4. "Assault weapons" are no more lethal than most common hunting weapons and considerably less than many.

 

[9thIDdoc]

the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

Considering the above, it will be interesting to see if the court rules that the assault weapon ban we had demonstrated an increase in public safety

 

[Clementine]

OK...Limit people protecting the prez to those weapons as well.

Fair is fair.

what are the State militia ?

Better yet limit the police, security guards, etc. anyone not in the military to the exact same weapons civillains can use. The military has to keep thier weapons in armories except in time of war.

If the police need heaver weapons, tough.

But the criminals have to be limited or this just won't work. Damn, how are we going to get them to obey the law? There are stockpiles of weapons in criminal hands right now and they will keep stealing more and more, not to mention the cache of assault weapons handed to drug cartels thanks to the Obama administration.

 

[grunt11b]

OK...Limit people protecting the prez to those weapons as well.

Fair is fair.

what are the State militia ?

Better yet limit the police, security guards, etc. anyone not in the military to the exact same weapons civillains can use. The military has to keep thier weapons in armories except in time of war.

If the police need heaver weapons, tough.

Moore like kept in an armory when not in use. I had my m-4 carbine out almost daily.

 

[candycorn]

Leave the second amendment alone. We have sufficient gun laws on the books now.

Start banning these HIGH DEFINITION, hyper realistic, blood bath video games where kids can RAPE, STEAL and KILL everything in the game, INCLUDING CHILDREN AND POLICE, and get a handle on all the KILLING and culture of VIOLENT movies DRAMATIZING KILLING coming out of hollyweird. When was the last time these sick fuckers made a WHOLESOME movie that you could take the whole family to? When was the last movie that didn't have the word FUCK in it or some QUEER?

The problem is NOT gun ownership. The problem is the person WIELDING the gun and what has made them what they are. THAT is where the problem with this NEW culture of YOUNG KILLER gun violence is coming from. It's got NOTHING to do with the firearms or the laws governing them.

The same video games are available in nearly every advanced society that produces the consoles they are played on. Look it up.

Somehow, Finland doesn't seem to have a monthly massacre problem. Neither does Germany, Holland, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Austria, Russia, England, France, Spain, Luxembourg, Andorra, Italy, Belarus, Norway, Scotland, Wales, Brazil, Greece, Switzerland, Romania, Hungary, or Indonesia.

The only difference between their kids and our kids in this realm is that their country doesn't have this 2nd Amendment.

And most of those countries have mandatory military service.

You may be on to something there;

I do know some Brits. One called us a "sardine can". She meant that we don't really know one another but are in proximity to one another only because the can says so. Our co-mingling is a function of commercial interests. Their claim is that Britain has a more innate bind between citizens. Perhaps it is military service; perhaps it is the Church's place in the society.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The same video games are available in nearly every advanced society that produces the consoles they are played on. Look it up.

Somehow, Finland doesn't seem to have a monthly massacre problem. Neither does Germany, Holland, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Austria, Russia, England, France, Spain, Luxembourg, Andorra, Italy, Belarus, Norway, Scotland, Wales, Brazil, Greece, Switzerland, Romania, Hungary, or Indonesia.

The only difference between their kids and our kids in this realm is that their country doesn't have this 2nd Amendment.

And most of those countries have mandatory military service.

You may be on to something there;

I do know some Brits. One called us a "sardine can". She meant that we don't really know one another but are in proximity to one another only because the can says so. Our co-mingling is a function of commercial interests. Their claim is that Britain has a more innate bind between citizens. Perhaps it is military service; perhaps it is the Church's place in the society.

When the military lowered it's standards a few years ago gang members enlisted. Do you think it was a good idea to train combat tactics to gang members?

 

[martybegan]

what are the State militia ?

Better yet limit the police, security guards, etc. anyone not in the military to the exact same weapons civillains can use. The military has to keep thier weapons in armories except in time of war.

If the police need heaver weapons, tough.

But the criminals have to be limited or this just won't work. Damn, how are we going to get them to obey the law? There are stockpiles of weapons in criminal hands right now and they will keep stealing more and more, not to mention the cache of assault weapons handed to drug cartels thanks to the Obama administration.

I agree totally, but we have this situation where police love gun bans, as long as it doesnt apply to them. I would make any reduction in civillian ownership of a given firearm directly linked to what the police can use.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

He would have found guns or went on to bombings or expressed his rage in other ways. Banning guns will only remove legal guns from the market.

 

[Papageorgio]

Better yet limit the police, security guards, etc. anyone not in the military to the exact same weapons civillains can use. The military has to keep thier weapons in armories except in time of war.

If the police need heaver weapons, tough.

But the criminals have to be limited or this just won't work. Damn, how are we going to get them to obey the law? There are stockpiles of weapons in criminal hands right now and they will keep stealing more and more, not to mention the cache of assault weapons handed to drug cartels thanks to the Obama administration.

I agree totally, but we have this situation where police love gun bans, as long as it doesnt apply to them. I would make any reduction in civillian ownership of a given firearm directly linked to what the police can use.

In 97 we had the North Hollywood shoot out 11 officers wounded, 7 civilians wounded the suspects were killed. The police force was out armed, if we limit the fire power of law enforcement, then we have the same situation as in Connecticut where the perp knows he has the advantage and it encourages him all the more.

 

[AmyNation]

But it's still untrue.

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

I already PROVED that so called 'coincidence' is utterly false. I posted all of the relevant information and you have ignored it. You have brought zero evidence to state otherwise. Take a look at the damn data. It completely disagrees with what you are stating and yet, you continue to cling to this idea.

You have? In this thread?

 

[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.

He would have found guns or went on to bombings or expressed his rage in other ways. Banning guns will only remove legal guns from the market.

I doubt he would have "found guns". Although he could have murdered people in other ways.