Rational discourse on gun control

[Skull Pilot]

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

 

[NCC1701]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of wart on our streets as irresponsible.

no evidence that taking them from us makes the streets safer. it is actually easy to get assault guns in places like Britain. Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

What makes a 'mass shooting' possible? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession. What type of weapon provides that capability? The semi-automatic firing system and large capacity magazines.

What makes gangs and drive by shootings so deadly to innocent bystanders? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession, and lack of marksmanship. If you were a poor marksman and wanted to ensure the death of your target and you had no regard to where all the bullets went, what type of weapon would you chose? The semi-automatic firing system and a large capacity magazine.

What type of weapons should American citizens have at their disposal? Bolt action rifles for sport, shotguns, revolvers. Weapons designed for sport, not the battlefield. Some weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias, some weapons belong in the hands of sportsmen.

as if I had posted nothing, just showed you that making it illegal is not the same as unobtainable, and I showed that the murder rate is not determined by guns laws.

you are irrational

 

[NCC1701]

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

Care to offer up some proof?

Tell us how are your so called ''solutions'' would work... Be specific

First by reducing the numbers of deadly semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are far too easy to get.

except the data shows no correlation between murder rate and gun availability, so your suggestion is useless

 

[Nosmo King]

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

 

[Rustic]

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

Violence is violence, taking guns away will solve nothing but make spineless cowards like yourself feel better… Control freak

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

No because not everyone who gets shot dies.

As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles

 

[pwjohn]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

How do you plan to stop blacks from killing each other?

 

[Nosmo King]

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

No because not everyone who gets shot dies.

As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles

You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.

No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.

 

[Muhammed]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

Fuck off. If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.

No need to cuss, Muhammed. Background checks don't outlaw armaments.

Fuck that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People who try to infringe on that right should be tortured and put to death by firing squad for being enemies of the American people.

Anything less is totally unreasonable.

 

[Muhammed]

...If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.

Agreed about the process and the unlikelihood of repealing or altering the Second Amendment. The anti-gun Left knows this too and that's why they prefer to chip away at it with "reasonable" gun laws than try to do exactly what they want head on; repeal the Second Amendment.

As mentioned previously, every gun control law they've passed has been a stepping stone for the next. If Obama had successfully passed his 2013 anti-gun bill, then the anti-gun left would be standing on it to add more "reasonable" laws such as "If a limit of 10-round magazines is good, why not limit them to 5 rounds?"

The jackass party of slavery better tread lightly. Americans could rise up and shoot all of the fucking bastards.

 

[Nosmo King]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

Fuck off. If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.

No need to cuss, Muhammed. Background checks don't outlaw armaments.

Fuck that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People who try to infringe on that right should be tortured and put to death by firing squad for being enemies of the American people.

Anything less is totally unreasonable.

Because execution by firing squad is so reasonable in and of itself.

 

[2aguy]

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Yes....I would deny it....357,000,000 guns in private hands......8,124 gun murders 90% of which are committed by people who already are legally barred from owning guns who have already been arrested for violent crimes and most for gun crimes....and they are back on the street...

200 million guns in private hands in thje 1990s......357 million guns in private hands in 2016....and our gun murder rate dropped 49%......

Think of the numbers....

357,000,000 v. 8,124..........

not even close to being a problem with 320,000,000 people in the country.....and almost all of the crime is confined to tiny geographic areas in our democrat controlled inner cities....

We don't have a gun problem...we have a criminal sentencing problem...the 2 guys who murdered Dwayne Wade's cousin....are both multiple felons and felons for gun charges who were both on parole..with ankel monitors when they killed her.......

had we focused on the criminals, and not law abiding gun owners...those guys would have been in jail for 30 years and that woman would be alive....

Licensing gun owners would not have stopped her murder.....they couldn't get a license

registering guns would not have stopped her murder....as felons they do not have to register illegal guns per the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision....

universal background checks would not have stopped her murder......they would or did use a straw buyer or stole their guns.....

France has every single gun law you want...they cannot own semi auto pistols or rifles or revovlers.....yet their criminals get fully automatic weapons easily...as do terrorists on government, terrorist watch lists.....

Nothing you say about guns is true or accurate...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

No because not everyone who gets shot dies.

As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles

You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.

No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.

Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill

The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban

 

[Nosmo King]

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Yes....I would deny it....357,000,000 guns in private hands......8,124 gun murders 90% of which are committed by people who already are legally barred from owning guns who have already been arrested for violent crimes and most for gun crimes....and they are back on the street...

200 million guns in private hands in thje 1990s......357 million guns in private hands in 2016....and our gun murder rate dropped 49%......

Think of the numbers....

357,000,000 v. 8,124..........

not even close to being a problem with 320,000,000 people in the country.....and almost all of the crime is confined to tiny geographic areas in our democrat controlled inner cities....

We don't have a gun problem...we have a criminal sentencing problem...the 2 guys who murdered Dwayne Wade's cousin....are both multiple felons and felons for gun charges who were both on parole..with ankel monitors when they killed her.......

had we focused on the criminals, and not law abiding gun owners...those guys would have been in jail for 30 years and that woman would be alive....

Licensing gun owners would not have stopped her murder.....they couldn't get a license

registering guns would not have stopped her murder....as felons they do not have to register illegal guns per the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision....

universal background checks would not have stopped her murder......they would or did use a straw buyer or stole their guns.....

France has every single gun law you want...they cannot own semi auto pistols or rifles or revovlers.....yet their criminals get fully automatic weapons easily...as do terrorists on government, terrorist watch lists.....

Nothing you say about guns is true or accurate...

Oh! Happy day! I guess those claims of absolutely NEEDING a gun for self defense are way over blown then! We're a safe, secure nation because there is no gun violence to speak of, aside from where those pesky Democrats hold seats on city council and the mayor's office. No gun violence so long as Republicans are in charge of cities, towns and villages.

 

[Muhammed]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

Fuck off. If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.

No need to cuss, Muhammed. Background checks don't outlaw armaments.

Fuck that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People who try to infringe on that right should be tortured and put to death by firing squad for being enemies of the American people.

Anything less is totally unreasonable.

Because execution by firing squad is so reasonable in and of itself.

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

Fuck off. If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.

No need to cuss, Muhammed. Background checks don't outlaw armaments.

Fuck that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People who try to infringe on that right should be tortured and put to death by firing squad for being enemies of the American people.

Anything less is totally unreasonable.

Because execution by firing squad is so reasonable in and of itself.

It certainly is. What is a more reasonable punishment for totalitarian assholes who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

 

[Nosmo King]

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

No because not everyone who gets shot dies.

As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles

You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.

No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.

Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill

The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban

Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Violence yes. Gun violence is no different than any other violence.

There is a distinct difference between people who legally own firearms and those who illegally procure them

If you want to stop violence then target your efforts on violent people. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

All people are not criminals until they are so why don't we just throw everyone in jail preemptively?

You cannot restrict people for what they might do.

You might rape a little girl so maybe we should castrate you.

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

No because not everyone who gets shot dies.

As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles

You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.

No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.

Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill

The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban

Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.

Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.

Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision

 

[Nosmo King]

Simple assault, a bar fight, is violence. Gun violence ends lives. Domestic violence is tragic. Gun violence ends lives. A riot is violent, yet not everyone involved in a riot dies as a result. Gun violence ends lives.

gun violence is no different from any other violence?
Do you want to rethink that?

No because not everyone who gets shot dies.

As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles

You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.

No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.

Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill

The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban

Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.

Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.

Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision

So you're going to ignore all those lethal fist fights on school yards? How irresponsible!

 

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

If a gun has a design flaw, the way the pinto did....you can have it recalled...and if someone is hurt due to a design flaw you can sue the gun maker....so we already have what you want.

All guns have been used for war....lever action rifles were used in war before magazine fed rifles were...revolvers were used for war before semi auto pistols were made....and medics in Vietnam often carried shot guns as their main weapon.......

So if we let you morons declare weapons of war off limits...you can declare all firearms off limits.....

 

[Nosmo King]

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

If a gun has a design flaw, the way the pinto did....you can have it recalled...and if someone is hurt due to a design flaw you can sue the gun maker....so we already have what you want.

All guns have been used for war....lever action rifles were used in war before magazine fed rifles were...revolvers were used for war before semi auto pistols were made....and medics in Vietnam often carried shot guns as their main weapon.......

So if we let you morons declare weapons of war off limits...you can declare all firearms off limits.....

Where's your rocket propelled grenade launcher? Is it hard to find fuel for your flamethrower?