91 Million Armed American Civilians Makes Me Feel Damned Good

[martybegan]

Kind of tough to see shit if you don't get out of your basement.

******* liar.

wouldn't know, guy, I don't own a basement on either of my properties.

What I do know is my next door neighbor shot himself in 2010 because despite the fact he had a whole host of issues, he was able to get a gun.

But not before he shot a bullet through the common area of the complex where we live.

Don't care. it doesn't impact my right to own a firearm, and not be infringed if I want to get one.

 

[martybegan]

Not your call, and not governments in my case. I am a law abiding citizen and I have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and until you repeal the 2nd amendment, go **** yourself.

So what do you do when Hillary's replacement for Scalia decides the second amendment is about Militias again, and we have gun laws passing judicial muster?

Then 3/4 of the States will pass laws fixing the situation, and good luck if places like NYC want to confiscate legally owned firearms.

Some things may go too far, and people will not take it.

But you will be cowering in your basement, scared of things that go bang (and Mormons).

 

[JoeB131]

Then 3/4 of the States will pass laws fixing the situation, and good luck if places like NYC want to confiscate legally owned firearms.

Some things may go too far, and people will not take it.

But you will be cowering in your basement, scared of things that go bang (and Mormons).

Guy, most people favor common sense gun control. Sorry, you nuts who want to arm terrorists and crazy people because a slave rapist said so are in the minority.

 

[martybegan]

Then 3/4 of the States will pass laws fixing the situation, and good luck if places like NYC want to confiscate legally owned firearms.

Some things may go too far, and people will not take it.

But you will be cowering in your basement, scared of things that go bang (and Mormons).

Guy, most people favor common sense gun control. Sorry, you nuts who want to arm terrorists and crazy people because a slave rapist said so are in the minority.

"Common sense gun control" is a mantra for oppressive rules, like in NYC, where if I want a handgun I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 above and beyond the cost of the firearm.

And you can't advocate for minor reform when all of us know you support disarmament of your fellow citizens, by force if need be. Again, its like asking PETA for a Brisket recipe.

And it's comical about your disdain for granted rights, when you believe in made up ones.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 86954

33,000 gun deaths.
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses a year

We know you guys are violent. Why we put up with your nonsense is the real question.

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Oldlady....we can already do this.....when you catch the criminal with the gun, you do as you do with drug crimes, you get them to snitch on the gun seller.....you don't need background checks on private sales...since even if you do put background checks on private sales...criminal gun sellers will still sell the guns, the criminals will use people with clean records to buy the guns, making the background check pointless, or they will steal the guns......

Right now....the problem is simply this....prosecutors and judges do not hand out long sentences on straw buyers....I have linked to the articles on this....there is no career enhancement, and it is difficult to get a jury to convict, a baby momma of a criminal who has been told to buy the gun.......

There is a bright note here in Illinois....Republican Governor Rauner signed a law giving a 20 year sentence for gun trafficking in this state........you don't need a universal background to do this.....

Long sentences for criminals who use guns will lower gun crime.......background checks don't do that....anymore than current, federally mandated background checks keep guns out of the hands of current felons.

you don't need background checks on private sales...since even if you do put background checks on private sales...criminal gun sellers will still sell the guns, the criminals will use people with clean records to buy the guns, making the background check pointless, or they will steal the guns......
My suggestion was to hold law abiding, "normal" people responsible for their firearms. If they are indeed stolen, report it to the police. If you choose to sell or trade it, make sure the recipient is cleared with a background check. Otherwise, if the gun is used in a crime, you are held responsible for the gun. It would cut down, I promise you, on illegal guns circulating on the street. Traces of the guns used in crimes in New Orleans, Chicago and D.C. showed that majority were "stolen," but not reported. What is the sense of doing one background check when the gun is purchased new and then letting it go to whomever you wish somewhere down the road. I realize some criminals will get around it; they already do. However, it would cut down on the # of illegal guns floating. I would not want to be arrested some day for a crime committed years after I traded my gun at a gun show. Make the person get a background check at every transfer (except close family members).

 

[Conservative65]

So the FBI's statistics are based on case studies, but you reject that based on what you read on anonymous internet forums? Brilliant.

I reject it based on common sense. Common sense says that excited people only inflicting fatalities .1% of the time is darned unlikely.

So you use you as a source and ignore valid sources? Got it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you base this on what?? What sort of science is involved in your claim?

Posted it earlier in the thread. Gun owners are less than 22% of the population.

Batshit crazy Guns nuts are a smaller percentage than that. Sadly, we've let you dominate the conversation too much.

There is no way to accurately say how many people own guns since most firearms do not have to be registered.

These estimates rely on surveys and there is no way to check the veracity of the answers.

I know that when I get asked if I own guns I say "No." Most of my friends who own guns say they do the same thing
I don't refuse to answer the question as that would most likely get put down as a yes by the survey takers

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lie after lie......actual research into these very topics show you have no idea what you are talking about....tell me...does it hurt when you keep pulling things out of your ass....?

The actual research is horseshit by the NRA>

Again, let's have the CDC do a real study, then we can have research.

They have been doing studies all along in fact I gave you a link to one done in 2015

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 86954

33,000 gun deaths.
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses a year

We know you guys are violent. Why we put up with your nonsense is the real question.

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

 

[OldLady]

And you base this on what?? What sort of science is involved in your claim?

Posted it earlier in the thread. Gun owners are less than 22% of the population.

Batshit crazy Guns nuts are a smaller percentage than that. Sadly, we've let you dominate the conversation too much.

There is no way to accurately say how many people own guns since most firearms do not have to be registered.

These estimates rely on surveys and there is no way to check the veracity of the answers.

I know that when I get asked if I own guns I say "No." Most of my friends who own guns say they do the same thing
I don't refuse to answer the question as that would most likely get put down as a yes by the survey takers

Why? Are you a felon, a DV offender? On probation? Are your friends, as well?

 

[Conservative65]

View attachment 86954

33,000 gun deaths.
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses a year

We know you guys are violent. Why we put up with your nonsense is the real question.

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

What you're doing is speculating and guessing trying to express something you can't know as fact.

I don't know why people wouldn't report it but you sure seem to think you know yet have no proof of what you say. I can't answer for any of them. You seem to think you can.

I had a gun stolen from me. It was in a LOCKED vehicle, on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the person going in that LOCKED VEHICLE while it was sitting PRIVATE PROPERTY, took something that didn't belong to them. I followed the law. The person that stole the gun violated three in doing it. Somehow, to gun haters, that's my fault.

If someone broke into my house and stole something, am I at fault because I has a sidelight on my front door despite having a deadbolt lock? Some of you idiots would say yes.

 

[Conservative65]

And you base this on what?? What sort of science is involved in your claim?

Posted it earlier in the thread. Gun owners are less than 22% of the population.

Batshit crazy Guns nuts are a smaller percentage than that. Sadly, we've let you dominate the conversation too much.

There is no way to accurately say how many people own guns since most firearms do not have to be registered.

These estimates rely on surveys and there is no way to check the veracity of the answers.

I know that when I get asked if I own guns I say "No." Most of my friends who own guns say they do the same thing
I don't refuse to answer the question as that would most likely get put down as a yes by the survey takers

Why? Are you a felon, a DV offender? On probation? Are your friends, as well?

I'm not a felon, a dv offender, on probation, etc. To my knowledge, none of my friends are either. However, when someone on a survey asks me questions I choose not to answer, it comes under the none of your ******* business category.

Whether or not I own guns comes under the same mindset when people tell me it's none of my business whether or not a woman has an abortion.

 

[martybegan]

View attachment 86954

33,000 gun deaths.
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses a year

We know you guys are violent. Why we put up with your nonsense is the real question.

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

So we can hold a person liable if someone steals their car, drives drunk, and kills someone?

Criminal liability has to follow an act, and a desire to cause said act. Someone who has their gun stolen and doesn't report it doesn't have the desire for someone to go out and kill someone else with their stolen gun.

 

[Conservative65]

33,000 gun deaths.
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses a year

We know you guys are violent. Why we put up with your nonsense is the real question.

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

So we can hold a person liable if someone steals their car, drives drunk, and kills someone?

Criminal liability has to follow an act, and a desire to cause said act. Someone who has their gun stolen and doesn't report it doesn't have the desire for someone to go out and kill someone else with their stolen gun.

OldLady says she can't prove her claims yet still makes them. When you state, "what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been stolen had probably transferred it illegally", that's making a claim.

 

[martybegan]

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

So we can hold a person liable if someone steals their car, drives drunk, and kills someone?

Criminal liability has to follow an act, and a desire to cause said act. Someone who has their gun stolen and doesn't report it doesn't have the desire for someone to go out and kill someone else with their stolen gun.

OldLady says she can't prove her claims yet still makes them. When you state, "what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been stolen had probably transferred it illegally", that's making a claim.

It's just more attempted end runs around the 2nd amendment. Nothing more or less.

 

[Conservative65]

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

So we can hold a person liable if someone steals their car, drives drunk, and kills someone?

Criminal liability has to follow an act, and a desire to cause said act. Someone who has their gun stolen and doesn't report it doesn't have the desire for someone to go out and kill someone else with their stolen gun.

OldLady says she can't prove her claims yet still makes them. When you state, "what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been stolen had probably transferred it illegally", that's making a claim.

It's just more attempted end runs around the 2nd amendment. Nothing more or less.

She's not the only one that makes such statements without proof.

 

[Skull Pilot]

View attachment 86954

33,000 gun deaths.
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses a year

We know you guys are violent. Why we put up with your nonsense is the real question.

So now suicide is a violent crime?

When did that law pass?

And legal gun owners are not responsible for anything done by people who illegally, sell ,buy or use guns.

Unless of course you want to hold every person with a penis responsible for every rape that happens as well

In Chicago, only 15% of the guns used in crimes were legally owned. The guns had been stolen (though not reported to police), traded or sold at a gun show, or sold to someone else--all transfers not including background checks. Eventually, it got into the hands of someone who used it in a crime. If the person who DID initially buy the gun legally and had the background check, was held responsible for the crime if he/she had transferred the gun without another background check or did not report it stolen, then...illegal guns on the streets would go way down.

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

That's quite an assumption.

You basically are saying that you think most people who get their guns stolen are really criminals themselves

So much for the whole innocent until proven guilty thing huh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you base this on what?? What sort of science is involved in your claim?

Posted it earlier in the thread. Gun owners are less than 22% of the population.

Batshit crazy Guns nuts are a smaller percentage than that. Sadly, we've let you dominate the conversation too much.

There is no way to accurately say how many people own guns since most firearms do not have to be registered.

These estimates rely on surveys and there is no way to check the veracity of the answers.

I know that when I get asked if I own guns I say "No." Most of my friends who own guns say they do the same thing
I don't refuse to answer the question as that would most likely get put down as a yes by the survey takers

Why? Are you a felon, a DV offender? On probation? Are your friends, as well?

No, If I was a felon I never would have gotten a CCW permit

But what business is it of yours or anyone else if I own guns or not?

Oh yeah it's none of your ******* business

 

[2aguy]

Lie after lie......actual research into these very topics show you have no idea what you are talking about....tell me...does it hurt when you keep pulling things out of your ass....?

The actual research is horseshit by the NRA>

Again, let's have the CDC do a real study, then we can have research.

Moron....we have linked to the actual research.....

 

[2aguy]

Actually they didn't, because the idea that a lawful citizen could be denied ownership of a firearm was a concept that only came about in the 60's and 70's, and only in progressive hellhole towns.

Not true. Miller vs. US was decided in the 1930's after the Feds passed the US Firearms act.

The NFA was passed in 1934 as a response to gangsters using machine guns.

Now, here was the things. Back in the 1960's, they passed sensible gun laws and the NRA was completely on board. It wasn't until the 1970s you got the crazy nuts taking over saying the nutty shit you have going on today, like gun ownership is a right.

because idiots like you decided to try to disarm lawful citizens, like in NYC, Chicago, and Washington D.C, and it took decades for the cases to consolidate and make their way through the courts.

The Sullivan Act in NYC was passed in the 30's due to mafia violence, it doesn't make it constitutional, just well defended by constitution hating judges of your mentality.

The Sullivan act was passed to protect the thugs working for the democrats....

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.
----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.