The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[M14 Shooter]

Why is it that every time some mental case uses a gun to kill a bunch of people you leftists want to take away my rights?

They want the state to have a monopoly on force, which they know cannot happen so long as the citizenry remains armed.

 

[zaangalewa]

The gun control the USA needs? A scrap press. Buy a weapon, throw it in.

 

[Kondor3]

Why is it that every time some mental case uses a gun to kill a bunch of people you leftists want to take away my rights?

Because you rightwingers keep allowing bad guys to sell guns to people who should not have them?

 

[Kondor3]

Why is it that every time some mental case uses a gun to kill a bunch of people you leftists want to take away my rights?

They want the state to have a monopoly on force, which they know cannot happen so long as the citizenry remains armed.

No... they want the slaughter of innocents to finally come to an end... and are now intent on forcing the issue at-law...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...Let's restrict free speech like that...

Free speech does not kill... guns do.

People kill.

Correction:

People do not kill using free speech.

People DO kill using guns.

---------

Next batter, please.

People DO have free speech because individuals are armed.

If you think for one minute that the narcissists who seek power would not end your rights in a heartbeat to gain more power, I have a fucking bridge to sell you.

Quit being a useful idiot to the political elite who seek tyranny.

.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy – delusional, paranoid, and devoid of merit.

And as already correctly noted: no one seeks to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns – this sort of hysterical demagoguery is ridiculous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is it that every time some mental case uses a gun to kill a bunch of people you leftists want to take away my rights?

They want the state to have a monopoly on force, which they know cannot happen so long as the citizenry remains armed.

No... they want the slaughter of innocents to finally come to an end...

Nothing suggested by the anti-gun loons will move us even a step closer to this.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ “express not implied????” How about shaken not stirred? You babbling idiot. Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha

Y'all only get away that in these totally frivolous venues. Try that in a more superior venue, and see if you get away with it.

/——/ Try posting “express, not implied “ in a serious venue and get laughed out of the room.

lol. they understand the law there. get responsive or be frivolous, is what I am going to say.

/——/ But you don’t understand the difference between express and expressed.

i understand you are more frivolous than i am.

/—-/ If you can’t use the proper words then no one will take you seriously.

 

[Cellblock2429]

...Let's restrict free speech like that...

Free speech does not kill... guns do.

People kill.

Correction:

People do not kill using free speech.

People DO kill using guns.

---------

Next batter, please.

People DO have free speech because individuals are armed.

If you think for one minute that the narcissists who seek power would not end your rights in a heartbeat to gain more power, I have a fucking bridge to sell you.

Quit being a useful idiot to the political elite who seek tyranny.

.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy – delusional, paranoid, and devoid of merit.

And as already correctly noted: no one seeks to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns – this sort of hysterical demagoguery is ridiculous.

/——/ oh yes you do. You can’t fool us.

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all only get away that in these totally frivolous venues. Try that in a more superior venue, and see if you get away with it.

/——/ Try posting “express, not implied “ in a serious venue and get laughed out of the room.

lol. they understand the law there. get responsive or be frivolous, is what I am going to say.

/——/ But you don’t understand the difference between express and expressed.

i understand you are more frivolous than i am.

/—-/ If you can’t use the proper words then no one will take you seriously.

lol. When you fail to understand basic concepts, no one will take You seriously.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Try posting “express, not implied “ in a serious venue and get laughed out of the room.

lol. they understand the law there. get responsive or be frivolous, is what I am going to say.

/——/ But you don’t understand the difference between express and expressed.

i understand you are more frivolous than i am.

/—-/ If you can’t use the proper words then no one will take you seriously.

lol. When you fail to understand basic concepts, no one will take You seriously.

/—-/ We don’t understand WTF you’re talking about most of the time.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. they understand the law there. get responsive or be frivolous, is what I am going to say.

/——/ But you don’t understand the difference between express and expressed.

i understand you are more frivolous than i am.

/—-/ If you can’t use the proper words then no one will take you seriously.

lol. When you fail to understand basic concepts, no one will take You seriously.

/—-/ We don’t understand WTF you’re talking about most of the time.

lol. not bright enough to ask questions?

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ But you don’t understand the difference between express and expressed.

i understand you are more frivolous than i am.

/—-/ If you can’t use the proper words then no one will take you seriously.

lol. When you fail to understand basic concepts, no one will take You seriously.

/—-/ We don’t understand WTF you’re talking about most of the time.

lol. not bright enough to ask questions?

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

/—-/ Ok I’ll ask a question. WTF does “no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.“ mean? It’s meaningless gibberish. So here is my question to you, the effect of this point of view in regard to moral perceptions is that they represent an important relative truth, but that philosophy " passes " beyond them " into a higher region, where imputation of guilt is " absolutely " meaningless " 2 - enseits des Guten ???

 

[danielpalos]

i understand you are more frivolous than i am.

/—-/ If you can’t use the proper words then no one will take you seriously.

lol. When you fail to understand basic concepts, no one will take You seriously.

/—-/ We don’t understand WTF you’re talking about most of the time.

lol. not bright enough to ask questions?

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

/—-/ Ok I’ll ask a question. WTF does “no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.“ mean? It’s meaningless gibberish. So here is my question to you, the effect of this point of view in regard to moral perceptions is that they represent an important relative truth, but that philosophy " passes " beyond them " into a higher region, where imputation of guilt is " absolutely " meaningless " 2 - enseits des Guten ???

exactly what it expresses.

You have excuses. Good federalists only have solutions.

 

[U2Edge]

300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots. They see someone else with a weapon and think its the mass shooter and shoot them. You could have a dozen of these cases with that many people. The mass shooter will still kill a few before he gets shot because he has the initiative. You'll still have over 20 people dead, half of them killed by the armed civilians thinking their target was the mass shooter.

What a bunch of false bullshit and fantasy.

What kind of looney-toons cartoon world do you live in?

If a concealed handgun carrier does not initially see the shooter when shots begin, surely he/she will know the direction of the shots, and 99,999 times out of 100,000, the handgun carrier will FIRST try to escape, without pulling the weapon.

Your post is EVIDENCE that you are not living in reality and you buy into the bullshit. You MUST be a commie leftist because you clearly do NOT understand human nature.


In Fact, in Texas, LTC (license to carry) holders are trained to not intervene or act like police in those situations. We're trained to de-escalate, and only pull for SELF defense or defense of family members AFTER attempting to flee or hide. As if that were not enough, the Texas LTC requires an applicant to demonstrate, at the gun range, the ability to use the hand gun with a high level of precision at various ranges in different patterns of fire. The instructor will call out different shot combinations (double tap, three-round bursts, etc.) and distances of up to 45 feet, so any argument that there would be significant collateral damage is also fiction and fear-mongering, at best.

Most of the concealed-carry courses are dedicated to situations where the carrier does NOT pull the weapon.

The LTC course and other training I received is one of the reasons I support MANDATORY training for everyone as a condition for graduating from high school.

So, take your completely unrealistic, bullshit fantasy scenarios and shove them up your ass. You just proved that you're a gun-grabbing cuck without the ability to think for yourself.

.

Even the United States military experiences problems with friendly fire and accidents in training missions. I don't care what you think a civilian has learned, they are not professional military or a police officer. The fact is, people panic, and when someone sees a weapon in the hands of another un-identified shooter, how do they know that is NOT the mass shooter. Police and SWAT teams that respond to these mass shootings usually scan potential victims for weapons. They have everyone fleeing the scene with their hands up. The fact that civilians may have weapons complicates and creates problems for POLICE and SWAT teams. One of their objectives is making sure the crime scene is safe and free of weapons and any criminals are captured, detained, or if necessary killed or incapacitated.

Most civilians who own guns are not trained anywhere near that of what someone in the military or police force has been. Large numbers of civilians with guns at a mass shooter scene would just cause accidents and extra deaths.

Country's with stiffer gun control laws have far less deaths from firearms and far less mass shootings. That shows that stricter gun control is the way to go. We want U.S. Firearm deaths to be reduced to the rate of Japan or the United Kingdom or at least get close. To do that, you need to reduce the number guns that are among the population. Gradually over time, strict gun control laws will achieve that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots. They see someone else with a weapon and think its the mass shooter and shoot them. You could have a dozen of these cases with that many people. The mass shooter will still kill a few before he gets shot because he has the initiative. You'll still have over 20 people dead, half of them killed by the armed civilians thinking their target was the mass shooter.

What a bunch of false bullshit and fantasy.

What kind of looney-toons cartoon world do you live in?

If a concealed handgun carrier does not initially see the shooter when shots begin, surely he/she will know the direction of the shots, and 99,999 times out of 100,000, the handgun carrier will FIRST try to escape, without pulling the weapon.

Your post is EVIDENCE that you are not living in reality and you buy into the bullshit. You MUST be a commie leftist because you clearly do NOT understand human nature.


In Fact, in Texas, LTC (license to carry) holders are trained to not intervene or act like police in those situations. We're trained to de-escalate, and only pull for SELF defense or defense of family members AFTER attempting to flee or hide. As if that were not enough, the Texas LTC requires an applicant to demonstrate, at the gun range, the ability to use the hand gun with a high level of precision at various ranges in different patterns of fire. The instructor will call out different shot combinations (double tap, three-round bursts, etc.) and distances of up to 45 feet, so any argument that there would be significant collateral damage is also fiction and fear-mongering, at best.

Most of the concealed-carry courses are dedicated to situations where the carrier does NOT pull the weapon.

The LTC course and other training I received is one of the reasons I support MANDATORY training for everyone as a condition for graduating from high school.

So, take your completely unrealistic, bullshit fantasy scenarios and shove them up your ass. You just proved that you're a gun-grabbing cuck without the ability to think for yourself.

.

Even the United States military experiences problems with friendly fire and accidents in training missions. I don't care what you think a civilian has learned, they are not professional military or a police officer. The fact is, people panic, and when someone sees a weapon in the hands of another un-identified shooter, how do they know that is NOT the mass shooter. Police and SWAT teams that respond to these mass shootings usually scan potential victims for weapons. They have everyone fleeing the scene with their hands up. The fact that civilians may have weapons complicates and creates problems for POLICE and SWAT teams. One of their objectives is making sure the crime scene is safe and free of weapons and any criminals are captured, detained, or if necessary killed or incapacitated.

Most civilians who own guns are not trained anywhere near that of what someone in the military or police force has been. Large numbers of civilians with guns at a mass shooter scene would just cause accidents and extra deaths.

Country's with stiffer gun control laws have far less deaths from firearms and far less mass shootings. That shows that stricter gun control is the way to go. We want U.S. Firearm deaths to be reduced to the rate of Japan or the United Kingdom or at least get close. To do that, you need to reduce the number guns that are among the population. Gradually over time, strict gun control laws will achieve that.

Your beliefs as screwed up as they are do not dictate my rights

 

[U2Edge]

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

Bullshit! In my state, open carry has been the law for many years. Now, concealed carry is perfectly legal without a CCDW permit!

You'd piss yourself walking into a Walmart here! That is why no one shoots up a Walmart in this state! They don't like people shooting back!

What state do you live in?

Because of people like you, I live in the great state of confusion. How is it possible that someone so stupid can operate a computer?

I live in KY which recently passed Constitutional concealed carry. You could walk into a Walmart intending to shoot up the place and be outnumbered 300 to 1!

300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots. They see someone else with a weapon and think its the mass shooter and shoot them. You could have a dozen of these cases with that many people. The mass shooter will still kill a few before he gets shot because he has the initiative. You'll still have over 20 people dead, half of them killed by the armed civilians thinking their target was the mass shooter.

Which is why citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms for the purpose of lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, or to deter crime, or to stop a mass shooting incident.

Citizens will rarely ever need a concealed firearm for their own self-defense. The answer from other countries like Japan and the United Kingdom is clear. Less firearms among the population leads to less firearm deaths among the population.

 

[U2Edge]

300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots. They see someone else with a weapon and think its the mass shooter and shoot them. You could have a dozen of these cases with that many people. The mass shooter will still kill a few before he gets shot because he has the initiative. You'll still have over 20 people dead, half of them killed by the armed civilians thinking their target was the mass shooter.

What a bunch of false bullshit and fantasy.

What kind of looney-toons cartoon world do you live in?

If a concealed handgun carrier does not initially see the shooter when shots begin, surely he/she will know the direction of the shots, and 99,999 times out of 100,000, the handgun carrier will FIRST try to escape, without pulling the weapon.

Your post is EVIDENCE that you are not living in reality and you buy into the bullshit. You MUST be a commie leftist because you clearly do NOT understand human nature.


In Fact, in Texas, LTC (license to carry) holders are trained to not intervene or act like police in those situations. We're trained to de-escalate, and only pull for SELF defense or defense of family members AFTER attempting to flee or hide. As if that were not enough, the Texas LTC requires an applicant to demonstrate, at the gun range, the ability to use the hand gun with a high level of precision at various ranges in different patterns of fire. The instructor will call out different shot combinations (double tap, three-round bursts, etc.) and distances of up to 45 feet, so any argument that there would be significant collateral damage is also fiction and fear-mongering, at best.

Most of the concealed-carry courses are dedicated to situations where the carrier does NOT pull the weapon.

The LTC course and other training I received is one of the reasons I support MANDATORY training for everyone as a condition for graduating from high school.

So, take your completely unrealistic, bullshit fantasy scenarios and shove them up your ass. You just proved that you're a gun-grabbing cuck without the ability to think for yourself.

.

Even the United States military experiences problems with friendly fire and accidents in training missions. I don't care what you think a civilian has learned, they are not professional military or a police officer. The fact is, people panic, and when someone sees a weapon in the hands of another un-identified shooter, how do they know that is NOT the mass shooter. Police and SWAT teams that respond to these mass shootings usually scan potential victims for weapons. They have everyone fleeing the scene with their hands up. The fact that civilians may have weapons complicates and creates problems for POLICE and SWAT teams. One of their objectives is making sure the crime scene is safe and free of weapons and any criminals are captured, detained, or if necessary killed or incapacitated.

Most civilians who own guns are not trained anywhere near that of what someone in the military or police force has been. Large numbers of civilians with guns at a mass shooter scene would just cause accidents and extra deaths.

Country's with stiffer gun control laws have far less deaths from firearms and far less mass shootings. That shows that stricter gun control is the way to go. We want U.S. Firearm deaths to be reduced to the rate of Japan or the United Kingdom or at least get close. To do that, you need to reduce the number guns that are among the population. Gradually over time, strict gun control laws will achieve that.

Your beliefs as screwed up as they are do not dictate my rights

Well, for several other countries its not just a belief, it is the law. Eventually one day, it will likely be the law In the United States and anyone who does not obey the law will be jailed.

 

[U2Edge]

01. Attend three month class on firearms

It does not take three months to learn firearm safety. It takes half a day.

This class is far more than just firearm safety. If a civilian is to be as knowledgeable and well trained as those in the military and police force on things pertaining to firearms, then the extra time is well deserved. Just as important, it will deter many civilians from getting a gun since many will not want to take a 3 month class on firearms. This serves the objective of reducing the number of firearms among the civilian population.

Your measures are therefore being proposed in bad faith; you’re not interested in public safety but instead of placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the Second Amendment right.

Indeed, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently struck down as un-Constitutional a District measure requiring gunowners to pass a test in order to register a firearm (“Heller II”).

Clearly a three-month ‘class’ would likewise fail to pass Constitutional muster.

Anything in the constitution can be amended. The mechanism to do that was given to us by the founding fathers. The 2nd amendment can be re-written or eliminated from the constitution if need be and lawmakers have the votes.

I want to see the United States achieve a firearm death rate similar to Japan or the United Kingdom. That is the objective. It would say tens of thousands of lives every year. Ownership and use of firearms among civilians should be rare and carefully monitored and reduced to just Shotguns and Air Rifles. A civilian does not need anything more than a shotgun or Air Rifle.

 

[dannyboys]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Why don't you have your little list printed and then you can go into every inner city negro run/populated DEM shithole in the country and go door to door handing them out out?
Better let your next of kin know where to send your belongings.
Adding more and more restrictions on law abiding gun owners is going to guarantee more REP Presidents.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Country's with stiffer gun control laws have far less deaths from firearms and far less mass shootings. That shows that stricter gun control is the way to go.

I would again ask you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws of those countries and their lower gun violence rates, but we both know you cannot.