Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Have you read the crap that psycho boy posts here?
I guess unlike you I don't believe everything I read on an anonymous internet message board
So, you must be in favor of Anachronism's murder fantasies, then. You're either a useless troll or as psychotic as he is. DISMISSED!
…I wonder if maybe it really is time for mandatory gun confiscation, with house-to-house searches for guns and summary executions for anyone not turning them in.
I guess unlike you I don't believe everything I read on an anonymous internet message board
Aug. 7, 2016 Boston Herald
Chicopee man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was knocking on his front door Saturday after the teen mistakenly went to the house believing a friend lived there, police said.
The identity of the slain teen — who was shot through the door shortly before 1 p.m. — was not immediately released.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, is expected to be arraigned for murder today, Chicopee police said yesterday in a statement on Facebook.
Click here to search for this article within the archive.
One of many in the search "shot for going to the wrong house."
I wouldn't go to his door. Would you? Knowing he talks crazy and has a gun? And he says he would shoot without much provocation.
Neighbor from hell is what someone has...
I guess unlike you I don't believe everything I read on an anonymous internet message board
Aug. 7, 2016 Boston Herald
Chicopee man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was knocking on his front door Saturday after the teen mistakenly went to the house believing a friend lived there, police said.
The identity of the slain teen — who was shot through the door shortly before 1 p.m. — was not immediately released.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, is expected to be arraigned for murder today, Chicopee police said yesterday in a statement on Facebook.
Click here to search for this article within the archive.
One of many in the search "shot for going to the wrong house."
I wouldn't go to his door. Would you? Knowing he talks crazy and has a gun? And he says he would shoot without much provocation.
Neighbor from hell is what someone has...
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Before I can worry about who gets hold of a gun, I have to be sure that "upstanding" folks are the only ones who buy them.
The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about “the right of 01470145upstanding’ folks”. It speaks of “the right of the people”. That means every free, adult, American citizen. Everyone who is not currently confined to prison or a mental hospital, and who is not under any such condition as probation or parole. It even includes those that you might judge to not be “‘upstanding’ folks”.
I guess unlike you I don't believe everything I read on an anonymous internet message board
Aug. 7, 2016 Boston Herald
Chicopee man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was knocking on his front door Saturday after the teen mistakenly went to the house believing a friend lived there, police said.
The identity of the slain teen — who was shot through the door shortly before 1 p.m. — was not immediately released.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, is expected to be arraigned for murder today, Chicopee police said yesterday in a statement on Facebook.
Click here to search for this article within the archive.
One of many in the search "shot for going to the wrong house."
I wouldn't go to his door. Would you? Knowing he talks crazy and has a gun? And he says he would shoot without much provocation.
Neighbor from hell is what someone has...
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
I guess unlike you I don't believe everything I read on an anonymous internet message board
Aug. 7, 2016 Boston Herald
Chicopee man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was knocking on his front door Saturday after the teen mistakenly went to the house believing a friend lived there, police said.
The identity of the slain teen — who was shot through the door shortly before 1 p.m. — was not immediately released.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, is expected to be arraigned for murder today, Chicopee police said yesterday in a statement on Facebook.
Click here to search for this article within the archive.
One of many in the search "shot for going to the wrong house."
I wouldn't go to his door. Would you? Knowing he talks crazy and has a gun? And he says he would shoot without much provocation.
Neighbor from hell is what someone has...
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
I guess unlike you I don't believe everything I read on an anonymous internet message board
Aug. 7, 2016 Boston Herald
Chicopee man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was knocking on his front door Saturday after the teen mistakenly went to the house believing a friend lived there, police said.
The identity of the slain teen — who was shot through the door shortly before 1 p.m. — was not immediately released.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, is expected to be arraigned for murder today, Chicopee police said yesterday in a statement on Facebook.
Click here to search for this article within the archive.
One of many in the search "shot for going to the wrong house."
I wouldn't go to his door. Would you? Knowing he talks crazy and has a gun? And he says he would shoot without much provocation.
Neighbor from hell is what someone has...
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Aug. 7, 2016 Boston Herald
Chicopee man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was knocking on his front door Saturday after the teen mistakenly went to the house believing a friend lived there, police said.
The identity of the slain teen — who was shot through the door shortly before 1 p.m. — was not immediately released.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, is expected to be arraigned for murder today, Chicopee police said yesterday in a statement on Facebook.
Click here to search for this article within the archive.
One of many in the search "shot for going to the wrong house."
I wouldn't go to his door. Would you? Knowing he talks crazy and has a gun? And he says he would shoot without much provocation.
Neighbor from hell is what someone has...
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?
Red:
Well, I guess the other member isn't the only Massachusetts resident who's liable to shoot someone who approaches their home.
I presume Mr. Lovell lawfully owned his gun, yet he misused it to the extent that he killed a teen whom he may not even have seen (news report says he shot through the door, but there's no description of the door in the report I read).
Curiously, it seems a lot of the results for "shot for going to the wrong house" involve police shooting the wrong person. That said, there are also other instances of individuals (non-cops) shooting someone for no apparent reason other than the victim being in their presence.
All of the above are, AFAIAC, killings that would not have happened were the gun wielders of more responsible and clear thinking minds. Every one of them is an individual who clearly failed to exercise good judgment in the use of their firearm. They aren't mass killers; they are nitwits who were allowed to own a gun, and being the imbeciles that they are, they did exactly what one might easily expect a mome to do: they killed someone they should not have.
- http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
- Boy, 16, Killed by Neighbor When He Enters Wrong House
- Father: Drunk Son Killed Trying To Enter Wrong House
I'm sorry, but responsible, clear thinking individuals don't shoot first and consider the consequences later. Nothing will convince me that is the thought and behavior pattern of folks who truly deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?
And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?And of course......357,000,000 guns in private hands....and a grand total of 586 accidental gun deaths in 2015.....
356,994,414 vs. 586
almost every gun owner in the country by that count is responsible .......yet with 33,000 people dying in cars and another 2 million injured in cars......you guys focus on guns....
guns that are used by Americans 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives.......some during mass public shootings.......so.....out of 1,500,000 crimes stopped....more than one life is actually saved.....
And what is it you types say...."If it only saves one life..." and guns save far more than that...in private hands...
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?
I've never seen 320 Years of History suggest banning all guns?
That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?That's all well and good, but doesn't do anything for the person who was shot by a person 320 thinks shouldn't have had a gun to begin with.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?
I've never seen 320 Years of History suggest banning all guns?
Hilary says she doesn't want to ban guns either.............
it is funny how all of these guys who don't want to ban guns always post the worst stories about guns, that are dishonest about guns and gun owners in this country.........and then they assure us they don't want to ban all guns..........they just want to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.....and then....when they are honest...every single one of their measures directly targets law abiding gun owners and limits their ability to own and carry guns......and do nothing to stop criminals......and when we explain how their plan does nothing .....they say we don't want any laws........
But hey...320 doesn't want to ban guns...
Actually, taken literally and strictly even felons and the mentally ill can't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, that is why a literal translation is so dangerous.
As smart as the founding fathers were, clearly the second amendment was poorly written.
So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?So.........they will pick the rare case and call for the indictment of all gun owners......and then use that to get the uninformed to vote away their basic rights.....
Yes, they will. Unless a coherent argument is made against them doing so. You always do this 2A , you essentially post "well the number of good gun owners outweigh the number of bad gun owners" which is true, but irrelevant in that MOST "gun grabbers" Don't actually want to take guns away from the good gun owners, they are simply over reacting to the crime they see happening and when they see posters like you who seem to be willing to live with the bad actors to make sure the good gun owners have their guns they stop giving a shit about your rights as well.
You actually come across, quite unintentionally I'm sure, the same way as the Islam defenders who scream "you can't screen Muslims , because most Muslims are good people" well of course that's true, but it's also true that without some form of screening, how are we to know which are the good ones, and which are the bad ones??
Do you even agree that there are many Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Be truthful..
Of course...but that isn't 320s point.......they use the one off example as a reason all gun owners are supposed to be dangerous and undeserving of the right to keep weapons........
the gun grabbers don't care how many law abiding gun owners there are, they want all guns banned........then they use tactics to get to that point.......
What I do is show the actual numbers.......because the uniformed are exactly that...uninformed and people like 320 want to keep them uninformed and emotional.......
What is your plan?
I've never seen 320 Years of History suggest banning all guns?
Hilary says she doesn't want to ban guns either.............
it is funny how all of these guys who don't want to ban guns always post the worst stories about guns, that are dishonest about guns and gun owners in this country.........and then they assure us they don't want to ban all guns..........they just want to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.....and then....when they are honest...every single one of their measures directly targets law abiding gun owners and limits their ability to own and carry guns......and do nothing to stop criminals......and when we explain how their plan does nothing .....they say we don't want any laws........
But hey...320 doesn't want to ban guns...
So you argue in circles to protest 320 arguing in circles? Give me a break. I offered a perfectly reasonable plan to test for who could buy guns and who couldn't that was LESS cumbersome than what we have now and you rejected it out of hand, in fact I've posted it SEVERAL times and doubt you have actually read the entire proposal one time.
Actually, taken literally and strictly even felons and the mentally ill can't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, that is why a literal translation is so dangerous.
As smart as the founding fathers were, clearly the second amendment was poorly written.
The Second Amendment, ad written, is the law, and government is obligated to strictly obey, uphold, and enforce it, as it is written.
If you think it's wrong, as literally applied, then the only valud remedy is to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede the Second Amendment.
It is not legitimate to treat it according to what anyone wishes that it said, in opposition to what it actually says.
Actually, taken literally and strictly even felons and the mentally ill can't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, that is why a literal translation is so dangerous.
As smart as the founding fathers were, clearly the second amendment was poorly written.
The Second Amendment, ad written, is the law, and government is obligated to strictly obey, uphold, and enforce it, as it is written.
If you think it's wrong, as literally applied, then the only valud remedy is to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede the Second Amendment.
It is not legitimate to treat it according to what anyone wishes that it said, in opposition to what it actually says.
And again you are wrong. The Bill of Rights only exists within the boundaries of judicial review. SCOTUS says "you can't yell fire in a theater" guess what? You can't yell fire in a theater.
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.
A material percentage of the guns used in criminal activity are purchased legally, purchased by people who, prior to abusing their gun (gun right), demonstrated no justifiable reason why they should not have been denied the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Now one cannot in good conscience and sound mind argue in favor of less strict controls on the gun trade using the assertion that (1) a material share of gun buyers exhibit the responsibility required to deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and (2) at the same time cite the fact most or many guns used nefariously are stolen. Those two facts, assuming they are both true, just don't fit together.
- "By definition, stolen guns are available to criminals. The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports; 60% are reports of stolen handguns."
- "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes."
- "In 2014, ATF traced the source of over 170,000 guns used in crimes in the U.S. And well over a quarter of them -- 28 percent -- were used to commit crimes in a state other than the one they were purchased in."
- "The picture is somewhat different here. West Virginia becomes the biggest exporter of crime guns at the per-capita level, with 52 crime guns per every 100,000 residents. Alaska and Mississippi also rank highly, as do a number of states in the south and mountain west. States with stricter gun laws, like New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, on the other hand, export relatively few crime guns on a per-capita basis."
- [T]he majority of crime guns in ATF's data -- 72 percent of them -- were purchased in-state.
- it is rare for the people who provide these guns to the eventual shooters to face any legal consequences.
Donald Wayne Bricker, Jr., who pled guilty to shooting his ex-girlfriend, provides an archetypal example of one sort of individual whom I have in mind and who should never have been able to acquire so much as water gun, let alone one that could be used to morally shoot someone.
Donald Wayne Bricker Jr., [a convicted sex offender,] was denied bail after prosecutors told the judge that the gun that Bricker used to allegedly shoot and kill Mariam Folashade Adebayo in the parking lot of the Target store in Germantown had arrived in the mail to his home only that morning. [Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.]Feinstein told the court that Bricker had previously purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for the antique and practiced firing it at least once before going to meet Adebayo in the parking lot on Monday evening.
[Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.] Feinstein further outlined that violent nature of Bricker telling the court that the gun which Bricker is said to have used had arrived in the mail at his residence in Hagerstown on the morning of the day of the murder. She said that because Bricker, a convicted sex offender and could not legally purchase a firearm, use a loophole in the law to order a replica antique “black powder” gun online and had it delivered through the mail. The purchase of antique firearms and replicas of antique guns is not regulated.
The above data makes clear that identifying effective and equitable means for dramatically reducing the availability of guns to folks who have nefarious intentions for their use is well worth pursuing. But just how does the supply chain for guns work? How does one interdict transactions and processes in that supply chain that enable current and would be nefarious gun users/abusers from getting hold of a firearm?
According to Dr. Phillip Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University:
While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals. That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.
If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion. In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.
What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.
There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.
There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.
Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.
All in the family
So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?
A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.
Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.
Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.
It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.
Based on the above information, two things are quite clear to me:
The task of identifying effective approaches to achieving those two objective rests not just with gun control devotees, but also with gun rights advocates. Folks on both sides of the matter, as Americans, have an obligation to collaborate to identify and implement solutions that reduce the quantity of gun killings and injuries. In light of that, what specific tactics does the gun lobby propose to accomplish the two objectives noted just above?
- The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
- Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.
A material percentage of the guns used in criminal activity are purchased legally, purchased by people who, prior to abusing their gun (gun right), demonstrated no justifiable reason why they should not have been denied the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Now one cannot in good conscience and sound mind argue in favor of less strict controls on the gun trade using the assertion that (1) a material share of gun buyers exhibit the responsibility required to deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and (2) at the same time cite the fact most or many guns used nefariously are stolen. Those two facts, assuming they are both true, just don't fit together.
- "By definition, stolen guns are available to criminals. The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports; 60% are reports of stolen handguns."
- "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes."
- "In 2014, ATF traced the source of over 170,000 guns used in crimes in the U.S. And well over a quarter of them -- 28 percent -- were used to commit crimes in a state other than the one they were purchased in."
- "The picture is somewhat different here. West Virginia becomes the biggest exporter of crime guns at the per-capita level, with 52 crime guns per every 100,000 residents. Alaska and Mississippi also rank highly, as do a number of states in the south and mountain west. States with stricter gun laws, like New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, on the other hand, export relatively few crime guns on a per-capita basis."
- [T]he majority of crime guns in ATF's data -- 72 percent of them -- were purchased in-state.
- it is rare for the people who provide these guns to the eventual shooters to face any legal consequences.
Donald Wayne Bricker, Jr., who pled guilty to shooting his ex-girlfriend, provides an archetypal example of one sort of individual whom I have in mind and who should never have been able to acquire so much as water gun, let alone one that could be used to morally shoot someone.
Donald Wayne Bricker Jr., [a convicted sex offender,] was denied bail after prosecutors told the judge that the gun that Bricker used to allegedly shoot and kill Mariam Folashade Adebayo in the parking lot of the Target store in Germantown had arrived in the mail to his home only that morning. [Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.]Feinstein told the court that Bricker had previously purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for the antique and practiced firing it at least once before going to meet Adebayo in the parking lot on Monday evening.
[Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.] Feinstein further outlined that violent nature of Bricker telling the court that the gun which Bricker is said to have used had arrived in the mail at his residence in Hagerstown on the morning of the day of the murder. She said that because Bricker, a convicted sex offender and could not legally purchase a firearm, use a loophole in the law to order a replica antique “black powder” gun online and had it delivered through the mail. The purchase of antique firearms and replicas of antique guns is not regulated.
The above data makes clear that identifying effective and equitable means for dramatically reducing the availability of guns to folks who have nefarious intentions for their use is well worth pursuing. But just how does the supply chain for guns work? How does one interdict transactions and processes in that supply chain that enable current and would be nefarious gun users/abusers from getting hold of a firearm?
According to Dr. Phillip Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University:
While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals. That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.
If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion. In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.
What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.
There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.
There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.
Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.
All in the family
So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?
A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.
Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.
Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.
It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.
Based on the above information, two things are quite clear to me:
The task of identifying effective approaches to achieving those two objective rests not just with gun control devotees, but also with gun rights advocates. Folks on both sides of the matter, as Americans, have an obligation to collaborate to identify and implement solutions that reduce the quantity of gun killings and injuries. In light of that, what specific tactics does the gun lobby propose to accomplish the two objectives noted just above?
- The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
- Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.
We know that you progressives do indeed wish to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. We KNOW this to be true. The rest of your post is propaganda and means nothing. If you truly wished to reduce "gun" crime, you would enforce the laws already on the books, and when somebody does commit a crime with a gun you would send them to prison forever. But no, instead you make sure that violent offenders are always released back out so that they can continue to victimize people so that you can get your gun control laws into place.
