CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[kaz]

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL

I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.

The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.

Stop distorting what I said. Semi automatic weapons, hand gun and long gun, should be banned.

and the cops would give theirs up too, right?

And criminals would stop using them too, right?

Why should a lawful person put themselves at a disadvantage?

They have no actual idea how to remove them from the criminals, so next best thing is making sure the criminals are the only ones with guns, right?

 

[2aguy]

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half ******* years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Okay....what better gun control do you want...I want longer prison sentences...that actually works...that is how Japan does it....30 years for illegal possession...but it would have to be for an actual criminal...not some nurse who accidentally brings her lawfully permitted gun into New Jersey....

That is the problem with the anti-gunners.....

We've been in these thread before, you know I want gun owner control, rather than gun control. It amazes me that you have to tested and approved to drive a car in this country, but any moron with $200 can walk into a store , get verified as never having been arrested before , and walk out with a gun.

You know as well as I do that there are a LOT of people in this country who legally own guns who shouldn't be allowed to do so. and of course that doesn't even address the situation of the illegally owned guns in this country.

As for your example of New Jersey, I personally think a federal right to transport law should exist where a city or state can't negate your right to transport a weapon in your vehicle, provided it is unloaded and secured.

and the problem with this....is the same problem with background checks...the people you would license....would buy guns for criminals who currently can't buy a gun because they currently fail a background check.

Stop and frisk, is one way to stop criminals with guns.....allowing police the ability to search anyone, at any time for any reason without a court order would be another way to do this......even homes and businesses.....

And that would be just as unconstitutional as banning guns is.

The ONLY reasonable solution is a system that uses your DL , or state ID, to verify that you have in fact had a background check. If you encounter a police officer for ANY reason and are found in possession of a firearm without said background check 5 years in prison for each weapon you posses , regardless of any other factor (IE you are stopped for speeding, you have a gun in the car, the officer sees it and arrests you , even if later on it is PROVEN that the stop was not in good faith, that's a different subject altogether, you STILL get 5 years in prison for the illegal gun)

There is no reason to have a gun ban, there is no reason to register guns, there is no reason to search door to door, stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion is fine.

Sorry....that is fine for a felon...but wrong for normal Americans who already start out having a right to own and carry a gun without needing permission from the government....

I would say if you don't have the check...a fine of some sort for a normal, non criminal citizen....just like any other failure to get paperwork done...not 5 years because you didn't go through a bureuacratic hoop.........

I would raise you......put felon, on the drivers licenses of felons......that way anyone selling a gun can just look at the drivers license....

Yes....they will use fake I.Ds....but they already do that anyway....this way you are meeting the anti gun morons half way with an actual tool a private seller can use that doesn't require a Poll Tax on the Right....

 

[OldLady]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

Oh no, OldLady advocates banning semi automatic hand guns as well.

OldLady which would reduce the murder rate in this country more. Banning semi automatic weapons, or banning negroes?

I'm serious with that question, no one denies that negroes aren't the only race that murders people, just as guns aren't the only weapons used to murder people, but if our goal is to reduce murder even if we can't eliminate it, which would have a greater effect on the murder rate in this nation?

Now , recognizing that of course banning negroes would do more to lower the murder rate in this country than banning guns would, your next step will of course be to scream that we can''t possibly ban negroes in this country and I will preemptively respond by saying that if we can ban guns, we can ban negroes.

I await your response.

Blacks aren't the problem. Gangs are the problem. Gangs distributing drugs. And blacks who find it the most viable financial option in their neighborhood. It is like the Mob all over again. That is what is causing the stellar murder rate in the 'hood. But you know that.

 

[2aguy]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol......

Banning semi auto weapons changes nothing...it didn't Change it in France, Sweden, Belgium, Britain, Australia.......they still get fully automatic weapons in those countries.....

How highly effective are weapons that have only killed 154 people in 34 years......

According to you then knives should be banned...they murdered 1,567 in 2014 and murder over 1,500 every single year....

rifles...in 2014... 248


Why don't you use your emotion to call for a ban on knives since they kill more people in the real world......?

 

[2aguy]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

Oh no, OldLady advocates banning semi automatic hand guns as well.

OldLady which would reduce the murder rate in this country more. Banning semi automatic weapons, or banning negroes?

I'm serious with that question, no one denies that negroes aren't the only race that murders people, just as guns aren't the only weapons used to murder people, but if our goal is to reduce murder even if we can't eliminate it, which would have a greater effect on the murder rate in this nation?

Now , recognizing that of course banning negroes would do more to lower the murder rate in this country than banning guns would, your next step will of course be to scream that we can''t possibly ban negroes in this country and I will preemptively respond by saying that if we can ban guns, we can ban negroes.

I await your response.

Blacks aren't the problem. Gangs are the problem. Gangs distributing drugs. And blacks who find it the most viable financial option in their neighborhood. It is like the Mob all over again. That is what is causing the stellar murder rate in the 'hood. But you know that.

Those guys shooting in black communities....90% felons...who can't buy, own or carry guns.......yet they are doing the killing....not law abiding gun owners.

 

[OldLady]

Old Lady apparently thinks an angry negro hell bent on murdering white cops would have went home and masturbated instead had he just not had been able to get a hold of a gun.

Did I say it would stop every shooting? No, I didn't say that, did I? Maybe if folks would stop with the "attitude," using disrespectful names like "Negro" when you know damned well it's offensive, angry young men wouldn't be quite so angry. Just a thought.
Pulling out the pee pee must mean you're running out of ammo.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Again, you simply aren't using logic when discussing this topic.

Do you REALLY believe that outlawing the sale of new semi automatic guns in this country would put a single dent in the number of guns available in this country? And yes, I know where I could go buy any number of illegal drugs. Any local high school. The same would be true of guns if they were made illegal.

I KNOW that intellectually you see the valid comparison between what you would like to do with guns and prohibition, which was an abysmal failure.

I know you realize that with 500 million or so guns already in this country, and relatively unguarded borders that banning guns isn't going to put a dent in the supply of guns , in fact it would do EXACTLY what you obviously don't want, it would INCREASE crime because the rice of guns would rise and poor people who are prone to crime anyway would resort to more crime in order to afford guns.

More reality, let's look at this jackass in Dallas, he had BOMBS as well as his guns. Now, I could be wrong, but I thought bombs were already illegal in this country, so obviously this guy already obtained that which is illegal. And further, assume he hadn't been able to acquire a gun and instead had strictly used bombs in his attacks, how many then would he have killed?

OldLady, I believe you have the best intentions on this topic, I really do, but I beliieve you are stuck on your partisan talking points and unwilling to look at actual facts There is NOTHING we could do, no law we could pass that would prevent men from wanting to hurt and or kill other men.. Recognizing this, it is not just crazy, it is irresponsible to suggest disarming the people.

And that is not even discussing the obvious desire of ISIS and other outside groups to attack us within our own borders.

Let me remind you of a piece of history before I wrap this post up.

The first thing ANY despot does when taking over is disarm the population. In our very own history, if our forefathers had given up their arms when ordered we would all be English, or perhaps German, citizens right now.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you even realize that nothing the anti gun activists proposed after Sandy Hook would have stopped the Sandy Hook murders?

Yes, I know that and yes, I see the sentence to which you refer. Nothing about it implies the reforms proposed in the wake of Sandy Hook aimed to mitigate the occurrence of events close in nature to Sandy Hook's. Sandy Hook served as a catalyst for proposing gun reforms, but I don't think anyone asserted the reform proposed -- the Manchin-Toomey Amendment**, which would have made background checks required for all gun sales and put the names of people who are (have been) prohibited from buying a gun in a list that allows for instant accessing -- sought to address "lone wolf" misbehavior/gun violence. Moreover, there is no requirement that the reform proposed needed to have addressed the specific circumstances of Sandy Hook.

Of the many types of reform that may be proposed, why does one proposed in temporal proximity to any given gun violence event have to address the nature of that event?

**Note:
The NRA aided in writing Manchin-Toomey.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Old Lady apparently thinks an angry negro hell bent on murdering white cops would have went home and masturbated instead had he just not had been able to get a hold of a gun.

Did I say it would stop every shooting? No, I didn't say that, did I? Maybe if folks would stop with the "attitude," using disrespectful names like "Negro" when you know damned well it's offensive, angry young men wouldn't be quite so angry. Just a thought.
Pulling out the pee pee must mean you're running out of ammo.

Frankly, I don't care what negroes find offensive. Perhaps that is part of their problem, They are always victims, always ofended by something, and always ready to react inappropriately to the slightest perceived offense.

An older adult cartoon summed that up best, a cartoon created by and written by black people by the way




So, why don't you focus your energies on helping those people understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to react to perceived offenses, instead of trying to take MY guns?

 

[OldLady]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol......

Banning semi auto weapons changes nothing...it didn't Change it in France, Sweden, Belgium, Britain, Australia.......they still get fully automatic weapons in those countries.....

How highly effective are weapons that have only killed 154 people in 34 years......

According to you then knives should be banned...they murdered 1,567 in 2014 and murder over 1,500 every single year....

rifles...in 2014... 248


Why don't you use your emotion to call for a ban on knives since they kill more people in the real world......?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol.....
Great, Guy! Then do it with a shotgun or pistol. What's the problem then?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol......

Banning semi auto weapons changes nothing...it didn't Change it in France, Sweden, Belgium, Britain, Australia.......they still get fully automatic weapons in those countries.....

How highly effective are weapons that have only killed 154 people in 34 years......

According to you then knives should be banned...they murdered 1,567 in 2014 and murder over 1,500 every single year....

rifles...in 2014... 248


Why don't you use your emotion to call for a ban on knives since they kill more people in the real world......?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol.....
Great, Guy! Then do it with a shotgun or pistol. What's the problem then?

Well, the first "problem" is I don't commit mass shootings. Not even with the fully automatic weapons I have in my gun safe let alone with a shotgun or a revolver.

 

[OldLady]

Old Lady apparently thinks an angry negro hell bent on murdering white cops would have went home and masturbated instead had he just not had been able to get a hold of a gun.

Did I say it would stop every shooting? No, I didn't say that, did I? Maybe if folks would stop with the "attitude," using disrespectful names like "Negro" when you know damned well it's offensive, angry young men wouldn't be quite so angry. Just a thought.
Pulling out the pee pee must mean you're running out of ammo.

Frankly, I don't care what negroes find offensive. Perhaps that is part of their problem, They are always victims, always ofended by something, and always ready to react inappropriately to the slightest perceived offense.

An older adult cartoon summed that up best, a cartoon created by and written by black people by the way




So, why don't you focus your energies on helping those people understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to react to perceived offenses, instead of trying to take MY guns?

OFF TOPIC: Perhaps that is part of their problem No it's part of OUR problem. I'm getting sick and tired of trying to mop up after folks that are inciting riot in this country by continuing to be arrogant and disrespectful to the black community.

As for guns, I only want your semi autos. You and I are never going to agree on that. But with any luck, someday we'll get to see if it helps.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Old Lady apparently thinks an angry negro hell bent on murdering white cops would have went home and masturbated instead had he just not had been able to get a hold of a gun.

Did I say it would stop every shooting? No, I didn't say that, did I? Maybe if folks would stop with the "attitude," using disrespectful names like "Negro" when you know damned well it's offensive, angry young men wouldn't be quite so angry. Just a thought.
Pulling out the pee pee must mean you're running out of ammo.

Frankly, I don't care what negroes find offensive. Perhaps that is part of their problem, They are always victims, always ofended by something, and always ready to react inappropriately to the slightest perceived offense.

An older adult cartoon summed that up best, a cartoon created by and written by black people by the way




So, why don't you focus your energies on helping those people understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to react to perceived offenses, instead of trying to take MY guns?

OFF TOPIC: Perhaps that is part of their problem No it's part of OUR problem. I'm getting sick and tired of trying to mop up after folks that are inciting riot in this country by continuing to be arrogant and disrespectful to the black community.

As for guns, I only want your semi autos. You and I are never going to agree on that. But with any luck, someday we'll get to see if it helps.

I know, you're sick and tired of people who actually want to address the ACTUAL statistics and such. Because you are a liberal and therefor inherently dishonest.

Semi automatic guns of all varieties are used to murder less people in this country every year than are knives. Where is your call to ban knives?

 

[OldLady]

I gotta go, but as my parting gasp,
There are ACTUAL statistics that many countries with less guns in the hands of the populace have much lower gun death rates. It also makes pure logical sense that if there are less guns in people's homes and pick ups, the less shootings there will be in the odd moment of rage. Or, barring that, that the person will manage to kill less people if he has a less speedy gun.
Being scouts honor honest about that. But thanks for the parting insult. It wouldn't be the same getting bonked over the head in a gun control thread without it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I gotta go, but as my parting gasp,
There are ACTUAL statistics that many countries with less guns in the hands of the populace have much lower gun death rates. It also makes pure logical sense that if there are less guns in people's homes and pick ups, the less shootings there will be in the odd moment of rage. Or, barring that, that the person will manage to kill less people if he has a less speedy gun.
Being scouts honor honest about that. But thanks for the parting insult. It wouldn't be the same getting bonked over the head in a gun control thread without it.

I gave you EVERY opportunity in this thread, and in others, and you have proven to fundamentally dishonest.

There is zero evidence to suggest that less guns would equal less crime, in fact the opposite is true, the gun violence rate in this country went DOWN after the assault weapons ban expired. If you don't want to be insulted, don't debate like a child.

 

[kaz]

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Actually instead of "Joe Citizen" you should be using an Arabic name. Muhammad Muslim?

 

[kaz]

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

So you don't want to remove our right to defend ourselves, just limit it. Got it.

At some point are you going to address criminals or just keep going after the rights of honest citizens?

see the post I just put up

The one where you called the guy with the Muslim name "Joe Citizen?" So you agree with Loretta Lynch that we need to figure out why Ahmad Abdula shot all those people screaming Allah is Great and death to infidels? Yeah, I wonder why they did that ...

 

[kaz]

Most are illegal but they began their lives as newly minted guns from a factory somewhere and were originally sold shiny and new in some store. That is a start.

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

What difference does it make what they do now? My point is you can't ban weapons when they will just get them from somewhere else. Your argument is like saying the dog won't use the doggie door when you leave the human door open because the dog doesn't use the doggie door now. Well, it doesn't need to, does it?

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you REALLY believe that outlawing the sale of new semi automatic guns in this country would put a single dent in the number of guns available in this country? And yes, I know where I could go buy any number of illegal drugs. Any local high school. The same would be true of guns if they were made illegal.

Red:
With gun sales curtailed and population growth not curtailed, eventually a time will come when there are fewer guns available for sale than there are people who want to own one. That will take some time, but the sooner the process begins, the sooner that day will come. Nobody thinks such a measure will yield an overnight change.

Blue:
The fact that you do know at which schools you can buy illegal drugs is what it is; you just do know what. Have you tipped the cops to the fact that illegal drugs of "any number" are so freely available at those schools that you can waltz up to the school and buy them? It'd seem that some reasonable point after your having provided such information, your and others' ability to do just that would end. And that, quite frankly, is what should happen.

While I don't want to see illegal "anything" sold at a school, I also doubt that illegal drugs can be bought at any local high school. There are at least four high schools within walking distance from my home in D.C., and I certainly would not wager that you, I or others seeking illegal drugs could go there to get them. In the 1970s when I was in high school, there were no kids on campus selling drugs; however, at one of the other schools the association of schools to which my alma mater belongs, there was one kid, a kid from abroad, who sold drugs, and I'm certain you could not have gone there to buy drugs from him. (I found out about him when I visited my friend from that school while we were both in college.) I mention that to indicate that I know it's possible to find the situation you describe, but that I don't think it's all that prevalent and pervasive as you note, and that I cannot imagine that the selling environment being such that anyone trundling over to the school to buy drugs there can do so.

Most importantly, however, what you are insinuating is that high schools will become tantamount to thriving gun markets with youths buying and selling guns with similar frequency to drug sales that occur at high schools now. I find that very hard to believe; it just seems ridiculously improbable. All guns are illegal items for kids to buy or sell now. What about limiting the supply of certain types of guns will convert schools into gun marketplaces?

let's look at this jackass in Dallas, he had BOMBS as well as his guns. Now, I could be wrong, but I thought bombs were already illegal in this country, so obviously this guy already obtained that which is illegal.

Nobody is suggesting that making a thing illegal will 100% of the time stop fully committed felons from finding ways to carry out their illegal objectives. There are even legal things I would like to buy that are in short supply and, guess what, as much as I'm willing to buy them and have the money to do so, I can't because the supply is not there for me to do so.

That phenomenon will eventually come into play with guns if/when their supply becomes curtailed. It will surely take a good while to make it happen, but regardless of one one's stance on using that approach to resolving the "gun problem," it takes no great wisdom to realize that the sooner the process begins the sooner the benefits of doing so can be realized.

assume he hadn't been able to acquire a gun and instead had strictly used bombs in his attacks, how many then would he have killed?

No way to tell. We can all theorize to our hearts content, assuming "this or that" pattern of events may have taken place.

There is NOTHING we could do, no law we could pass that would prevent men from wanting to hurt and or kill other men.

What did we do to transform cigarette smoking from a "cool" behavior in which most adults wanted to partake into a behavior that has become tolerated but decidedly "uncool?" I think much the same thing needs to occur re: gun use.

What do people do to dissuade certain behaviors and encourage others? What did your father do with his Playboy magazine(s) to prevent you from getting to them? He locked them up no doubt. I didn't want my kids accidentally getting into the gardening pesticides, so I had them put out of their reach. We don't want underage people readily accessing tobacco products and alcohol products, so we require them to prove they are are authorized to buy them by demanding an ID.

Do those actions we take stop every undesirable incident and accident from occurring? No, but they stop some of them, and that's the goal. We have ample evidence that constraining access to a given item reduces the incidence of individuals who aren't supposed to access that item doing so. I see nothing suggesting that the same outcome will not occur with guns.

 

[320 Years of History]

The murders committed constantly in Chicago alone?

Well, just what do you propose we do to stop the gun violence in Chicago?

I have to be honest...I see the gun rights folks spending a lot of energy saying "this won't work" and "that won't work." I don't see them saying "this is what will work."