The failure of “reasonable” gun control

[M14 Shooter]

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate – a de facto license.
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

These requirements include every “reasonable” limit proposed by those who wish to further restrict the rights of law abiding in order to prevent gun violence - and yet, they failed to prevent the UCSB shooting.

Given that they failed in their intended effect, what sound argument is there for the efficacy of these “reasonable” laws?
If these laws cannot prevent the violence they were intended to prevent, what sound argument is there that they do not constitute an unnecessary, and thus, unconstitutional, infringement on the rights of the law abiding?

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[occupied]

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Dude, the entire gun argument, both sides, is all emotion, ignorance and lies. Making fear of guns a political lever is every bit as disingenuous as making love of guns or fear of their banning a political lever. We as a nation have decided that we are just going to live with the possibility of mass murder and that's all there is to it. Ourselves, our kids, our police, every single one of us could die tomorrow at the hands of a manic and that's all there is to it and every single person in the gun lovers camp feels that it's acceptable. Shove your call for a non-emotional response, lots of people have lost loved ones to gun violence and they have every right to rub the gun lobby's nose in it and their apparent lack of shame at responding to horror with selfish comments about protecting their guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You forgot to mention that in California as I understand it they know who bought what and all the cops had to do was access the data base on the shooter and see he had purchased 3 handguns. Further as I understand California law they could have forced him to be seen at a mental health facility for up to 3 days.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Dude, the entire gun argument, both sides, is all emotion, ignorance and lies. Making fear of guns a political lever is every bit as disingenuous as making love of guns or fear of their banning a political lever. We as a nation have decided that we are just going to live with the possibility of mass murder and that's all there is to it. Ourselves, our kids, our police, every single one of us could die tomorrow at the hands of a manic and that's all there is to it and every single person in the gun lovers camp feels that it's acceptable. Shove your call for a non-emotional response, lots of people have lost loved ones to gun violence and they have every right to rub the gun lobby's nose in it and their apparent lack of shame at responding to horror with selfish comments about protecting their guns.

And yet you defend car companies that murder thousands a year more a year then firearms. Remind us what your stance on Doctors killing patients is? I mean something like 120 thousand a year die from negligence?

The REALITY is less then a tiny fraction of one percent of firearms are ever used in a murder ever year. The reality is that most murders are committed by gang members that won't follow any law you pass.

The very laws you demand don't work. As proven by California. Yet you demand them anyway.

Just admit you want all firearms banned from private ownership and then get started on that amendment to accomplish it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Dude, the entire gun argument, both sides, is all emotion, ignorance and lies. Making fear of guns a political lever is every bit as disingenuous as making love of guns or fear of their banning a political lever. We as a nation have decided that we are just going to live with the possibility of mass murder and that's all there is to it. Ourselves, our kids, our police, every single one of us could die tomorrow at the hands of a manic and that's all there is to it and every single person in the gun lovers camp feels that it's acceptable. Shove your call for a non-emotional response, lots of people have lost loved ones to gun violence and they have every right to rub the gun lobby's nose in it and their apparent lack of shame at responding to horror with selfish comments about protecting their guns.

If you wish to restrict my right to do something then I require more than emotion from you. You have to demonstrate that what you propose will actually do something effective. One of the largest mass killings in recent history (aside from governments) was done in Norway, where there are very stringent gun laws. If you think making gun laws here more stringent will make it any safer, you are kidding yourself. I see no reason to give up something just so you can pretend your safer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Dude, the entire gun argument, both sides, is all emotion, ignorance and lies.

Speak for yourself, as I have no need to argue from any of those things.

I also note that you did not answer the questions. Wanna take a shot?

 

[occupied]

I am not asking you to give up anything except the fear of some liberal boogeyman is going to take your fucking guns. The gun lobby won, why are you still letting them scare you about something that is not ever going to happen short of an amendment? Your guns are safe, quit being a cold-hearted dick when some crack-pot destroys a bunch of lives. I am not in favor of banning anything but I will be damned if I ever identify with such a cowardly bunch as you political gun nuts, your attitudes in the face of tragedy is despicable and you should be ashamed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am not asking you to give up anything except the fear of some liberal boogeyman is going to take your fucking guns

Because, as you know, as soon as someone kills a few people with an 'assault weaon', they don't try to do that very thing.

The gun lobby won, why are you still letting them scare you about something that is not ever going to happen short of an amendment?

Or enough liberal congressmen decide that "doing the right thing" is more important than their job.
Fortunately enbougt, THAT will never happen.

Still looking for answers to those questions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No response from the "reasonable restrictions" crowd?
None?

 

[hazlnut]

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate – a de facto license.
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

These requirements include every “reasonable” limit proposed by those who wish to further restrict the rights of law abiding in order to prevent gun violence - and yet, they failed to prevent the UCSB shooting.

Given that they failed in their intended effect, what sound argument is there for the efficacy of these “reasonable” laws?
If these laws cannot prevent the violence they were intended to prevent, what sound argument is there that they do not constitute an unnecessary, and thus, unconstitutional, infringement on the rights of the law abiding?

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

You understand people can cross state borders like Arizona, gun nutter paradise, and buy guns at a gun show without a background check.


The gun laws we need are tying mental health database to 'no sell' lists and confiscation policies.

There's the C word - confiscation. Don't wait for a mentally ill person to commit a crime, take the guns away. Just like we take the drivers lic. away from dementia patients.

When a person is dishonorably discharged or released from a mental hospital, the local police should have the right to protect the neighbors.

Anybody on anti-psychotics - guns should be removed.

When a man is arrested for domestic abuse, take his damn guns. If he tries to hide them or then slap on more charges.

The gun nutters are so terrified of the word 'confiscation' they don't realize, we don't want your guns unless you're a criminal or mentally insane --

 

[Little-Acorn]

CA
Given that they failed in their intended effect, what sound argument is there for the efficacy of these “reasonable” laws?

Laws are only obeyed by law-abiding folks.

Criminals ignore them.

(How many times has this been pointed out to the so-called "gun control" crowd?)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate – a de facto license.
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

These requirements include every “reasonable” limit proposed by those who wish to further restrict the rights of law abiding in order to prevent gun violence - and yet, they failed to prevent the UCSB shooting.

Given that they failed in their intended effect, what sound argument is there for the efficacy of these “reasonable” laws?
If these laws cannot prevent the violence they were intended to prevent, what sound argument is there that they do not constitute an unnecessary, and thus, unconstitutional, infringement on the rights of the law abiding?

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

You understand people can cross state borders like Arizona, gun nutter paradise, and buy guns at a gun show without a background check.


The gun laws we need are tying mental health database to 'no sell' lists and confiscation policies.

There's the C word - confiscation. Don't wait for a mentally ill person to commit a crime, take the guns away. Just like we take the drivers lic. away from dementia patients.

When a person is dishonorably discharged or released from a mental hospital, the local police should have the right to protect the neighbors.

Anybody on anti-psychotics - guns should be removed.

When a man is arrested for domestic abuse, take his damn guns. If he tries to hide them or then slap on more charges.

The gun nutters are so terrified of the word 'confiscation' they don't realize, we don't want your guns unless you're a criminal or mentally insane --

Taking medication does not make one insane dumbass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate – a de facto license.
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

These requirements include every “reasonable” limit proposed by those who wish to further restrict the rights of law abiding in order to prevent gun violence - and yet, they failed to prevent the UCSB shooting.

Given that they failed in their intended effect, what sound argument is there for the efficacy of these “reasonable” laws?
If these laws cannot prevent the violence they were intended to prevent, what sound argument is there that they do not constitute an unnecessary, and thus, unconstitutional, infringement on the rights of the law abiding?

Please - at least try to post something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

You understand people can cross state borders like Arizona, gun nutter paradise, and buy guns at a gun show without a background check.

Irrelevant in this case. The guns were bought legally under CA law, the pinnacle of "reasonable" gun control. It failed.

Now then - care to answer the questions:
Given that they failed in their intended effect, what sound argument is there for the efficacy of these “reasonable” laws?
If these laws cannot prevent the violence they were intended to prevent, what sound argument is there that they do not constitute an unnecessary, and thus, unconstitutional, infringement on the rights of the law abiding?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still no answers, eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No answers... why is that?

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not asking you to give up anything except the fear of some liberal boogeyman is going to take your fucking guns. The gun lobby won, why are you still letting them scare you about something that is not ever going to happen short of an amendment? Your guns are safe, quit being a cold-hearted dick when some crack-pot destroys a bunch of lives. I am not in favor of banning anything but I will be damned if I ever identify with such a cowardly bunch as you political gun nuts, your attitudes in the face of tragedy is despicable and you should be ashamed.

I have absolutely no fear of any "liberal boogeyman". In fact, the amusing thing is most of the people on the board assume I'm a "liberal boogeyman" on any but this subject.

I see this issue in the same light I see the so called war on drugs. You have a patient with a serious medical condition. So you cut off his feet. It does nothing to cure the disease, causes harm to the patient, and is very expensive but at least you can say you're doing something.

I am not interested in solutions that don't work for the sake of doing something.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The failure of “reasonable” gun control

Nonsense.

Reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures such as background checks and prohibiting felons from owning firearms have worked successfully and as intended.

The problem is not with reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures, but with the failure to implement the measures in conjunction with addressing issues of mental health and American society’s perception that violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

On the other hand, gun control measures that are not reasonable, appropriate, or Constitutional – such as purchase permits, licenses and permits to own firearms, firearm registration, waiting periods, the prohibition of certain types of firearms, limits on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period, training requirements, vision tests, and other undue burdens to exercising the right to possess a firearm – would remain ineffective even in conjunction with other remedies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The failure of “reasonable” gun control

Nonsense.

Reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures such as background checks and prohibiting felons from owning firearms have worked successfully and as intended.

The problem is not with reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures, but with the failure to implement the measures in conjunction with addressing issues of mental health and American society’s perception that violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

On the other hand, gun control measures that are not reasonable, appropriate, or Constitutional – such as purchase permits, licenses and permits to own firearms, firearm registration, waiting periods, the prohibition of certain types of firearms, limits on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period, training requirements, vision tests, and other undue burdens to exercising the right to possess a firearm – would remain ineffective even in conjunction with other remedies.

"Reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures such as background checks and prohibiting felons from owning firearms have worked successfully and as intended."

Well....if you say they have, obviously the truth is the opposite, C_Chamber_Pot

In fact, the CDC has studied said laws....and found that the laws have zero effect.





http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."




Hey....do you realize that blondes tell jokes about you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The failure of “reasonable” gun control

Nonsense.
Reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures such as background checks and prohibiting felons from owning firearms have worked successfully and as intended.

As we saw at UCSB.
Congrats on the fail.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The failure of “reasonable” gun control

Nonsense.
Reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional gun control measures such as background checks and prohibiting felons from owning firearms have worked successfully and as intended.

As we saw at UCSB.
Congrats on the fail.

You have to wonder if liberals actually believe this stuff they're spewing.

Gun control laws work.
Bergdahl's squad mates are liars and psychos.
Obamacare will insure more people, lower costs, and improve care.
Benghazi was caused by a video.
Big government will create a more prosperous, safer country.

Have they ever gotten anything right?

They don't actually believe this stuff, do they?