The only laws that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[JT8691]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

Do you think we all guns were banned that criminals wouldn't get their hands on them regardless? How did that work with alcohol again?

The more guns you make illegal you'll be doing two major things:

A) Disarming law-abiding citizens (criminals by definition don't follow the law)

B) Giving more power and money to organized crime. The last thing the drug cartels want is for the drugs they sell is to be made legal. Just like how the mob came to power during prohibition

Basically are you saying that you're naive enough that if guns were banned that criminals would give theirs up, or they wouldn't buy them again?

 

[martybegan]

So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?

If Fisher Price or GM made a product that killed 39,000, 390,000 or 1.3 million people directly...would you think we should look at beefing up the consumer safety regulations or would you be okay with that too?

That product would probably not be functioning as intended, so it would be a recall, not a ban. Bad analogy, no biscuit.

the surge in gun deaths would be due to something LIKE society crumbling. Right now homicides are on the decline in general even WITH all the guns in circulation.

Except guns ARE WORKING THE WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK...point, pull the trigger, kill what you're aiming at.

Or destroy the skeet you shot at, or plink the can you shot at, or hit the target you shot at.

Guns are designed to accelerate a projectile using a controlled chemical detonation. everything after that is the design of the user.

 

[hunarcy]

Or destroy the skeet you shot at, or plink the can you shot at, or hit the target you shot at.

Guns are designed to accelerate a projectile using a controlled chemical detonation. everything after that is the design of the user.

Exactly correct!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Except guns ARE WORKING THE WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK...point, pull the trigger, kill what you're aiming at.

Actually, guns are used far more often to prevent crimes, than to kill.

A number of studies have found that people by the millions have used their guns to keep someone from threatening, robbing, injuring, or killing them... usually without a shot being fired.

And those are just the time such acts have been reported. How many times have people been threatened, and then put a hand on a gun they were carrying, or taken out the gun, only to see the criminals turn and run... and NOT reported to the police that they, in turn, had threatened the criminal? Many probably just let things go on - no harm, no foul, why risk having the police take your gun when you did nothing wrong?

And how many times did some guy who wanted to mug an old lady, knock over a store, of shoot up a shopping mall, turn away when he found out there were armed guards (or other armed people) nearby? You won't find those incidents listed in statistics... but they are more common that the gun-haters want to admit. And they are definitely times when people having guns, stopped crimes.

President Obama commissioned a study by the Centers for Disease Control, treating "gun violence" as a "disease", to find how often guns were used. He apparently didn't like the result of the study - it has never been mentioned in any news reports, except a few back-page stories below the ads for cabbages. CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com

And President Bill Clinton's Justice Dept. under Attorney General Janet Reno, did a study on gun usage, only to find that ordinary people used guns literally millions of times every year, to ward off or deter criminals. Again, usually without a shot being fired.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

People like candycorn who wail about the horror of "gun crimes", never mention these facts. But the fact remains that we a re a lot better off with guns, than without them.

Gund are used to kill, comparatively rarely. They are used to stop crimes, far more often. How many more innocent people would be injured or killed if they did not have a gun?

 

[BobPlumb]

With a gun a 95 pound lady can take down a 300 pound thug that tries to force his way into her house and rape her. It's been said many times, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

 

[TheJedi]

Never going to happen.

It's true when they say,"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

That being said, no amount of reducing magazine capacity (though I could be flexible on this within reason), bans or confiscations are going to stop murder by firearm in this country. What we need to do is find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to use them for unprovoked violence against another.

This is tricky because I do not want to see a national firearms registry but I think we can all agree that the following types of people should not be allowed to have guns:

People with a penchant for violence - domestic abusers, people with documented records of violence, convicted felons, ect.
The mentally ill - schizophrenics, manic depressives, bi-polar, borderline personality disorder, etc.
Sex offenders - Pedophiles and rapists
Drug addicts and Alcoholics - many gun deaths come at the hands of people who have serious problems with drugs and/or alcohol whether accidental or intentional. A firearm in the hands of anyone under the influence is dangerous

That being said, I leave exactly how to do this up for debate.

Background checks do a decent job of sorting out the violent ones with records. On mental health, if could be implemented in a cost effective, minimally invasive manner, I would like to see mental health evaluations for new gun owners applying for their firearms permit and grandfather those that already have permits in. The only this time this should come up in a gun owner's life is if said registered gun owner is involved in a incident where mental health may be an issue.

Again, I leave it up to debate but many of the last few shootings we have witnessed in the last few years were perpetrated by mentally disturbed individuals so I think it prudent that we find a way that we all can agree on to prevent these loons from getting guns.

On substance abuse and addiction, this can be tricky. Some people just may snort the occasional line of coke and smoke the occasional joint but in all manners they are responsible enough to keep their firearms locked away when partaking in such activities so mandatory drug testing would be out of the question, however, if it is found out that a gun owner may have an addiction to mind-mood-altering substances, through say, multiple calls to a home for domestic violence where police observe a drunken gun owner taunting them, that could be a red flag for mandatory drug testing and evaluation to determine if he gets to keep his guns.

Or something like that. I am just looking at common-sense ideas that can, at the very least, mitigate some of the gun violence in the country. It will never be eliminated but if we can find a way to identify those most at risk for erupting into gun violence, even if it saves just one life per year....it is worth it. Finding consensus is a whole other matter since most people these days are quite unreasonable.

 

[MikeK]

Most of the mass shooters fit the profile of someone who would have no clue how to acquire black market items. You seriously think Adam Lanza would have had the wherewithal to acquire a black market firearm? Come on. Half of these mass shooters can barely function in society let alone have the balls and the street smarts to find and buy a black market firearm.


Aaron Ybarra was subdued by a guy with pepper spray after stopping to reload.

You have a point, but that's today when legally available firearms are readily available and plentiful. Try banning them and watch what happens.

The situation is comparable to drugs. When they're illegal, and you have some money to spend, they come looking for you. And when they're illegal their appeal is amplified.

The ultimate effect of banning guns will be one more Prohibition, and we know how effective that is, as well as a giant step closer to a police state. And the bottom line is the law-abiding will be disarmed but the criminal element won't be.

 

[Spoonman]

So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?

If Fisher Price or GM made a product that killed 39,000, 390,000 or 1.3 million people directly...would you think we should look at beefing up the consumer safety regulations or would you be okay with that too?

That product would probably not be functioning as intended, so it would be a recall, not a ban. Bad analogy, no biscuit.

the surge in gun deaths would be due to something LIKE society crumbling. Right now homicides are on the decline in general even WITH all the guns in circulation.

Except guns ARE WORKING THE WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK...point, pull the trigger, kill what you're aiming at.

.000024 of all guns in hte USA ever kills someone. not very efficient at doing what they are designed to do are they?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

Cute, but you are the one advocating rendering people essentially helpless in the face of criminal violence thereby aiding those bent on harm.

 

[Spoonman]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

ah, so its criminals who are killing. I thought it was guns?

 

[candycorn]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

Cute, but you are the one advocating rendering people essentially helpless in the face of criminal violence thereby aiding those bent on harm.

No, the hysterical mis-characterization of my position (happens daily) is the renderence of persons as helpless.

Perhaps you can now address the above: What about the rights of those who are victims of gun violence? Is there anything beyond the encouraging passage of "tough shit" we should offer them?

 

[candycorn]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

Do you think we all guns were banned that criminals wouldn't get their hands on them regardless?

No. Which is why I never suggested a ban.

How did that work with alcohol again?

Apples and oranges. With alcohol, a liquid, you need basic ingredients and a mixing vessel. You can make small batches in your home. With firearms, you need some sort of way to manufacture a weapon; it isn't just a mixing operation.. Different animal all together.

The more guns you make illegal you'll be doing two major things:

A) Disarming law-abiding citizens (criminals by definition don't follow the law)

Again, never suggested any such thing.

B) Giving more power and money to organized crime. The last thing the drug cartels want is for the drugs they sell is to be made legal. Just like how the mob came to power during prohibition

Which is a good thing I'm not suggesting a ban.

But to your point...
We have a nurse who is a gun nut. She obeys the speed limits, picks up after her dog, crosses at the cross walks, etc... Exactly the type of respectful, responsible gun owner you would think she is.

My suggestion is that we make guns more expensive. You can still buy them--as many as you want--but raising the costs lowers the demand; Economics 101. While it is true that there are some who will seek out a black market or some other means of acquisition, it's unlikely that our RN will all of the sudden break the law so she can buy another gun.

As for criminals, here is what happens when you lower the demand; gun companies produce less. Again, ECON 101. When you have lower demand, you produce less to reduce the supply. The guns on the "black market" come from the same place as the guns on the open markets. Net less production will raise the price for criminals as well. Thus reducing their demand--laws of supply and demand apply to criminals too.

Basically are you saying that you're naive enough that if guns were banned that criminals would give theirs up, or they wouldn't buy them again?

Again, if you were to read every post I made on this thread, you would not see me use the word "ban" at all. The smarter decision is to being a rollback of available weaponry while partnering with the manufacturers to promote parental involvement in their kids relationships to firearms while also instituting tough mandatory minimums for any crime committed using or brandishing a firearm.

 

[candycorn]

Except guns ARE WORKING THE WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK...point, pull the trigger, kill what you're aiming at.

Actually, guns are used far more often to prevent crimes, than to kill.

A number of studies have found that people by the millions have used their guns to keep someone from threatening, robbing, injuring, or killing them... usually without a shot being fired.

And those are just the time such acts have been reported. How many times have people been threatened, and then put a hand on a gun they were carrying, or taken out the gun, only to see the criminals turn and run... and NOT reported to the police that they, in turn, had threatened the criminal? Many probably just let things go on - no harm, no foul, why risk having the police take your gun when you did nothing wrong?

And how many times did some guy who wanted to mug an old lady, knock over a store, of shoot up a shopping mall, turn away when he found out there were armed guards (or other armed people) nearby? You won't find those incidents listed in statistics... but they are more common that the gun-haters want to admit. And they are definitely times when people having guns, stopped crimes.

President Obama commissioned a study by the Centers for Disease Control, treating "gun violence" as a "disease", to find how often guns were used. He apparently didn't like the result of the study - it has never been mentioned in any news reports, except a few back-page stories below the ads for cabbages. CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com

And President Bill Clinton's Justice Dept. under Attorney General Janet Reno, did a study on gun usage, only to find that ordinary people used guns literally millions of times every year, to ward off or deter criminals. Again, usually without a shot being fired.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

People like candycorn who wail about the horror of "gun crimes", never mention these facts. But the fact remains that we a re a lot better off with guns, than without them.

Gund are used to kill, comparatively rarely. They are used to stop crimes, far more often. How many more innocent people would be injured or killed if they did not have a gun?

Yet we have 10,000+ gun deaths and we have what, 360,000,000 guns on the street? The suggestion that if we had 720,000,000 guns on the street we'd be safer deserves a chuckle. We should have zero since we, by far, have the most guns of any advanced society.

 

[9thIDdoc]

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

Cute, but you are the one advocating rendering people essentially helpless in the face of criminal violence thereby aiding those bent on harm.

No, the hysterical mis-characterization of my position (happens daily) is the renderence of persons as helpless.

Perhaps you can now address the above: What about the rights of those who are victims of gun violence? Is there anything beyond the encouraging passage of "tough shit" we should offer them?

Yes we can and do offer them the opportunity to NOT be a victim. You would deny that option while offering only platitudes and BS.
Anti-gun= pro-criminal

 

[9thIDdoc]

My suggestion is that we make guns more expensive. You can still buy them--as many as you want--but raising the costs lowers the demand; Economics 101. While it is true that there are some who will seek out a black market or some other means of acquisition, it's unlikely that our RN will all of the sudden break the law so she can buy another gun.

Your understanding of reality-at least on this subject-is abysmal. Criminals buy off the black market because they do not want a record of the purchase and because they are not allowed to buy retail by law. A black market gun normally costs many times the price of the same mod. gun at retail.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Except guns ARE WORKING THE WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK...point, pull the trigger, kill what you're aiming at.

Actually, guns are used far more often to prevent crimes, than to kill.

A number of studies have found that people by the millions have used their guns to keep someone from threatening, robbing, injuring, or killing them... usually without a shot being fired.

And those are just the time such acts have been reported. How many times have people been threatened, and then put a hand on a gun they were carrying, or taken out the gun, only to see the criminals turn and run... and NOT reported to the police that they, in turn, had threatened the criminal? Many probably just let things go on - no harm, no foul, why risk having the police take your gun when you did nothing wrong?

And how many times did some guy who wanted to mug an old lady, knock over a store, of shoot up a shopping mall, turn away when he found out there were armed guards (or other armed people) nearby? You won't find those incidents listed in statistics... but they are more common that the gun-haters want to admit. And they are definitely times when people having guns, stopped crimes.

President Obama commissioned a study by the Centers for Disease Control, treating "gun violence" as a "disease", to find how often guns were used. He apparently didn't like the result of the study - it has never been mentioned in any news reports, except a few back-page stories below the ads for cabbages. CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com

And President Bill Clinton's Justice Dept. under Attorney General Janet Reno, did a study on gun usage, only to find that ordinary people used guns literally millions of times every year, to ward off or deter criminals. Again, usually without a shot being fired.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

People like candycorn who wail about the horror of "gun crimes", never mention these facts. But the fact remains that we a re a lot better off with guns, than without them.

Gund are used to kill, comparatively rarely. They are used to stop crimes, far more often. How many more innocent people would be injured or killed if they did not have a gun?

Yet we have 10,000+ gun deaths and we have what, 360,000,000 guns on the street? The suggestion that if we had 720,000,000 guns on the street we'd be safer deserves a chuckle. We should have zero since we, by far, have the most guns of any advanced society.

You seem to spend half your time whining that people are putting words in your mouth, and the rest making up silly suggestions and pretending others have said them.

Let me know when you figure out what you're talking about.

 

[hunarcy]

My suggestion is that we make guns more expensive. You can still buy them--as many as you want--but raising the costs lowers the demand; Economics 101. While it is true that there are some who will seek out a black market or some other means of acquisition, it's unlikely that our RN will all of the sudden break the law so she can buy another gun.

Your understanding of reality-at least on this subject-is abysmal. Criminals buy off the black market because they do not want a record of the purchase and because they are not allowed to buy retail by law. A black market gun normally costs many times the price of the same mod. gun at retail.

I don't know who said what was in italics, but obviously his/her real agenda is to keep the poor (minorities) unarmed. Probably afraid of those he/she has abused in the past becoming empowered to exact revenge.

 

[Little-Acorn]

My suggestion is that we make guns more expensive. You can still buy them--as many as you want--but raising the costs lowers the demand; Economics 101. While it is true that there are some who will seek out a black market or some other means of acquisition, it's unlikely that our RN will all of the sudden break the law so she can buy another gun.

Your understanding of reality-at least on this subject-is abysmal. Criminals buy off the black market because they do not want a record of the purchase and because they are not allowed to buy retail by law. A black market gun normally costs many times the price of the same mod. gun at retail.

I don't know who said what was in italics, but obviously his/her real agenda is to keep the poor (minorities) unarmed. Probably afraid of those he/she has abused in the past becoming empowered to exact revenge.

The suggestion of making guns more expensive for the purpose of reducing the number of people who buy them, has already been tried, long ago.

In 1934 the Fed govt passed a law putting a huge tax on the sales of various guns.

As soon as it hit a Federal court, it was found to be an unconstitutional violation of people's right to keep and bear arms, and thrown out.

Apparently liberals can do nothing but keep trying to recycle long-failed policies.

 

[hunarcy]

Apparently liberals can do nothing but keep trying to recycle long-failed policies.

You know, that's true. And, that's why I laugh at them for calling themselves "progressives". They merely want to take us back to the late 70's and Jimmy Carter's agenda, while asking us to go back to first century technology (windmills) and early 20th century technology (electric cars). No real progress in their agenda.