Could Guns Really Be Effectively Banned in America?

[Katzndogz]

Not now, since the government indicated a desire to ban guns, gun ownership has sparked too many people getting guns, some for the first time. Very soon, if it hasn't happened already, gun owners will be a very large majority in this country. Too large to overcome.

 

[Katzndogz]

The gun nuts won't budge on their hardline stance even if 100 kids were murdered by a madman tomorrow.

A madman does not need a firearm to murder 100 six year olds. What would you wish to ban if he chopped them up with a hatchet or a machete?

If he were using a machete or a hatchet, six teachers would have been able to overpower him.

Six conservative teachers might overpower him, liberal teachers would try to reason with him as he was chopping up the kids.

 

[JoeB131]

A madman does not need a firearm to murder 100 six year olds. What would you wish to ban if he chopped them up with a hatchet or a machete?

If he were using a machete or a hatchet, six teachers would have been able to overpower him.

Six conservative teachers might overpower him, liberal teachers would try to reason with him as he was chopping up the kids.

Funny, then why is it the liberals who join the military while the conservatives get the draft deferments?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then why not go along with the sensible laws he's proposed.

Close the Gun Show Loophole.
Stop the sale of high capacity magazines.
Do thorough background checks to make sure guns aren't in homes with crazy people in them.

There is no gun show loophole.
WHat do you do about the 1Trillion high cap mags already out there?
Who is a "crazy" person?

You can't answer those things because your programmers havent provided that information.
.

Guy, the thing is, every time we get one of these shooters- Cho, Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, the two things we alway find out was

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy.

and

2) they were able to get a gun, often lots of guns, anyway.

So here's how I'd do it. You have to provide three references, just like you would if you were applying for a job. And if all three of those guys say, "****, no, that guy's crazy as batshit!" that should stop you from buying a gun.

If they had done that with Loughner or Cho, this wouldn't be a issue.




Now I'm not sure where you get the "1 Trillion" mags already out there figure. But simple enough. YOu ban them, and state you have to turn themin within a grace period.

If you are caught with one, we take the magazine, your gun and you are not allowed to buy a new gun for a period of 8 years. Put a few undercover ATF agents at gun ranges to figure out who isn't complying...

This would more be an indicator of stupidity, than sanity.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no gun show loophole.
WHat do you do about the 1Trillion high cap mags already out there?
Who is a "crazy" person?

You can't answer those things because your programmers havent provided that information.
.

Guy, the thing is, every time we get one of these shooters- Cho, Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, the two things we alway find out was

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy.

and

2) they were able to get a gun, often lots of guns, anyway.

So here's how I'd do it. You have to provide three references, just like you would if you were applying for a job. And if all three of those guys say, "****, no, that guy's crazy as batshit!" that should stop you from buying a gun.

This would more be an indicator of stupidity, than sanity.

Well, I think that a Cho or a Loughner couldn't provide three references in the "I'm not Crazy" division... but that's the point. This is how employers keep the mentally ill off the payrolls.

 

[Politico]

Then why not go along with the sensible laws he's proposed.

Close the Gun Show Loophole.
Stop the sale of high capacity magazines.
Do thorough background checks to make sure guns aren't in homes with crazy people in them.

None of that had anything to do with it. And don't bother splitting hairs on it either.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then why not go along with the sensible laws he's proposed.

Close the Gun Show Loophole.
Stop the sale of high capacity magazines.
Do thorough background checks to make sure guns aren't in homes with crazy people in them.

There is no gun show loophole.
WHat do you do about the 1Trillion high cap mags already out there?
Who is a "crazy" person?

You can't answer those things because your programmers havent provided that information.
.

Guy, the thing is, every time we get one of these shooters- Cho, Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, the two things we alway find out was

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy.

and

2) they were able to get a gun, often lots of guns, anyway.

So here's how I'd do it. You have to provide three references, just like you would if you were applying for a job. And if all three of those guys say, "****, no, that guy's crazy as batshit!" that should stop you from buying a gun.

If they had done that with Loughner or Cho, this wouldn't be a issue.

Now I'm not sure where you get the "1 Trillion" mags already out there figure. But simple enough. YOu ban them, and state you have to turn them in within a grace period.

No. Just flat-out no. Hell, I don't even have any of them and I'm ready to buy one just to piss you off.

If you are caught with one, we take the magazine, your gun and you are not allowed to buy a new gun for a period of 8 years. Put a few undercover ATF agents at gun ranges to figure out who isn't complying...

Why the hell would I go to a range? I can shoot plenty of places without paying range fees!

 

[Intense]

"Could Guns Really Be Effectively Banned in America?"

Not according to the promise this president made:

"When you all go home and you're talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take my gun away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

FLASHBACK: Obama: I Will NOT Take Your Guns Away | CNS News

He won't, Silly.... Not Personally.....He'll just have ATF do it.

 

[JoeB131]

Then why not go along with the sensible laws he's proposed.

Close the Gun Show Loophole.
Stop the sale of high capacity magazines.
Do thorough background checks to make sure guns aren't in homes with crazy people in them.

None of that had anything to do with it. And don't bother splitting hairs on it either.

Any one of those things would have stopped a lot of the mass shootings we've had.

 

[martybegan]

Then why not go along with the sensible laws he's proposed.

Close the Gun Show Loophole.
Stop the sale of high capacity magazines.
Do thorough background checks to make sure guns aren't in homes with crazy people in them.

None of that had anything to do with it. And don't bother splitting hairs on it either.

Any one of those things would have stopped a lot of the mass shootings we've had.

Actually 1 and 2 would have done squat, and 3 is unconsitutional and against most legal precedent due to the fact that a) define crazy in a legal sense and b) its a restriction based on the actions of another person, not the purchaser of the weapon. Its basically a "sins of the father" type law that is not seen in the west.

 

[daveman]

If he were using a machete or a hatchet, six teachers would have been able to overpower him.

Six conservative teachers might overpower him, liberal teachers would try to reason with him as he was chopping up the kids.

Funny, then why is it the liberals who join the military while the conservatives get the draft deferments?

This has to be close to the top of the list of the stupidest things you've ever said.

Military members are primarily conservative.

 

[JoeB131]

None of that had anything to do with it. And don't bother splitting hairs on it either.

Any one of those things would have stopped a lot of the mass shootings we've had.

Actually 1 and 2 would have done squat, and 3 is unconsitutional and against most legal precedent due to the fact that a) define crazy in a legal sense and b) its a restriction based on the actions of another person, not the purchaser of the weapon. Its basically a "sins of the father" type law that is not seen in the west.

Most of "the West" severely restricts private gun ownership. Which is why they only have dozens of gun deaths and we have thousands.

Frankly, you guys scream, "That won't work" all day, and forget that in most of the industrialized world, it has worked and does work.

 

[JoeB131]

Six conservative teachers might overpower him, liberal teachers would try to reason with him as he was chopping up the kids.

Funny, then why is it the liberals who join the military while the conservatives get the draft deferments?

This has to be close to the top of the list of the stupidest things you've ever said.

Military members are primarily conservative.

Not when I was in. Most of them were poor kids who signed up thinking they were going to get a free college education....

You could make a better argument for the career people...

 

[martybegan]

Any one of those things would have stopped a lot of the mass shootings we've had.

Actually 1 and 2 would have done squat, and 3 is unconsitutional and against most legal precedent due to the fact that a) define crazy in a legal sense and b) its a restriction based on the actions of another person, not the purchaser of the weapon. Its basically a "sins of the father" type law that is not seen in the west.

Most of "the West" severely restricts private gun ownership. Which is why they only have dozens of gun deaths and we have thousands.

Frankly, you guys scream, "That won't work" all day, and forget that in most of the industrialized world, it has worked and does work.

It has more to do with our crime rate than our gun ownership. We have a much higher incarcerated population here, which while not a perfect indication of criminality, probably trends more closely to the increase in homicides by whatever means than the ratio of guns owned here vs. guns owned in other countries.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually 1 and 2 would have done squat, and 3 is unconsitutional and against most legal precedent due to the fact that a) define crazy in a legal sense and b) its a restriction based on the actions of another person, not the purchaser of the weapon. Its basically a "sins of the father" type law that is not seen in the west.

Most of "the West" severely restricts private gun ownership. Which is why they only have dozens of gun deaths and we have thousands.

Frankly, you guys scream, "That won't work" all day, and forget that in most of the industrialized world, it has worked and does work.

It has more to do with our crime rate than our gun ownership. We have a much higher incarcerated population here, which while not a perfect indication of criminality, probably trends more closely to the increase in homicides by whatever means than the ratio of guns owned here vs. guns owned in other countries.

Yes, we lock people up more than other countries do, because we have an economic system where people aer profitting by locking people up.

Wasn't always that way, you know. In fact, up until the Mid-1980's, we had an an incarceration rate that was on par with other industrialized nations.

It wasn't until then we got the War on Drugs and the Prison Industrial Complex profitting off of it.

But, yeah, the fact its so easy to get guns makes it easy to commit crimes as well.

 

[martybegan]

Most of "the West" severely restricts private gun ownership. Which is why they only have dozens of gun deaths and we have thousands.

Frankly, you guys scream, "That won't work" all day, and forget that in most of the industrialized world, it has worked and does work.

It has more to do with our crime rate than our gun ownership. We have a much higher incarcerated population here, which while not a perfect indication of criminality, probably trends more closely to the increase in homicides by whatever means than the ratio of guns owned here vs. guns owned in other countries.

Yes, we lock people up more than other countries do, because we have an economic system where people aer profitting by locking people up.

Wasn't always that way, you know. In fact, up until the Mid-1980's, we had an an incarceration rate that was on par with other industrialized nations.

It wasn't until then we got the War on Drugs and the Prison Industrial Complex profitting off of it.

But, yeah, the fact its so easy to get guns makes it easy to commit crimes as well.

A more plausible conclusion is that the higher number of gun deaths is due to the higher number of criminals, but go ahead and keep blaming an inanimate object for human nature if it makes you sleep better at night.

 

[JoeB131]

[

A more plausible conclusion is that the higher number of gun deaths is due to the higher number of criminals, but go ahead and keep blaming an inanimate object for human nature if it makes you sleep better at night.

So I ask, WHY does America have a higher number of criminals?

Could it be because unlike those socialist countries you guys whine about all day, we don't make sure everyone has a job, that there's universal health care and a social safety net?

Why are Germans and Japanese less inclined to produce criminals. Not because they are a less violent people by nature. WWII is proof they can be just as cruel and evil as any other people.

The fact not everyone can get a gun has a lot to do with them having a lower crime rate. So is the fact that they make darned sure that keeping everyone employed and taken care of is a higher prioriy than the rich living large.

But dammit! We're Americans. We're exceptional, living in mortal fear behind our guns and our home security systems and our big dogs....

 

[martybegan]

[

A more plausible conclusion is that the higher number of gun deaths is due to the higher number of criminals, but go ahead and keep blaming an inanimate object for human nature if it makes you sleep better at night.

So I ask, WHY does America have a higher number of criminals?

Could it be because unlike those socialist countries you guys whine about all day, we don't make sure everyone has a job, that there's universal health care and a social safety net?

Why are Germans and Japanese less inclined to produce criminals. Not because they are a less violent people by nature. WWII is proof they can be just as cruel and evil as any other people.

The fact not everyone can get a gun has a lot to do with them having a lower crime rate. So is the fact that they make darned sure that keeping everyone employed and taken care of is a higher prioriy than the rich living large.

But dammit! We're Americans. We're exceptional, living in mortal fear behind our guns and our home security systems and our big dogs....

No, you misinterpret the aggresiveness of the Japanese and Germans. They were agressive against OTHER nations and races. Against thier own both cultures have always had far less crime than american culture does.

 

[daveman]

Funny, then why is it the liberals who join the military while the conservatives get the draft deferments?

This has to be close to the top of the list of the stupidest things you've ever said.

Military members are primarily conservative.

Not when I was in. Most of them were poor kids who signed up thinking they were going to get a free college education....

You could make a better argument for the career people...

Good Gaea, you ignorant buffoon. Your limited experience does NOT define reality. Stop pretending it does.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If robbers ran into gun carriers regularly, robberies would plunge.

That might be true. But it's also likely that more robbery victims would get killed (the ones that lose the gun fight).