Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

I don't see how the Bill of Rights or any legislation prevents regulations around gun ownership. We have legal regulations for all of our constitutional rights. Can you explain how the second amendment is different?

You can't use a Literacy test for voting.....you can't charge a tax for voting..... these laws are essentially that.....and they are unConstitutional.

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

Reduced access to firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths. Shocking.

However, using this as proof that more gun control is needed only counts if you believe that people killed with guns are more dead than people killed with other weapons.

Britain has very strict gun regulation, no? Obviously fewer people are killed with guns. But what happened to the homicide rate when the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed?

It went up.

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

All of them impact me directly.

 

[2aguy]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

Reduced access to firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths. Shocking.

However, using this as proof that more gun control is needed only counts if you believe that people killed with guns are more dead than people killed with other weapons.

Britain has very strict gun regulation, no? Obviously fewer people are killed with guns. But what happened to the homicide rate when the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed?

It went up.

Their criminals are starting to use guns more and more. Their criminal gangs are immigrants who do not respect British culture, laws and police.......and they are bringing in more and more guns to take drug turf.

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

This is where irrational gun haters usually say we want nuclear weapons given to kindergartners for free.

 

[2aguy]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

That depends on whether or not the democrat party judges, and prosecutors keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail...that is what drives their gun crime rates, not gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

Reduced access to firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths. Shocking.

However, using this as proof that more gun control is needed only counts if you believe that people killed with guns are more dead than people killed with other weapons.

Britain has very strict gun regulation, no? Obviously fewer people are killed with guns. But what happened to the homicide rate when the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed?

It went up.

I never said more gun control was needed. I said gun control is justified and necessary and not unconstitutional. If we are talking practically I'd say that we can always get rid of unnecessary laws that don't work and add new laws that would be more effective. Which ones those are should be taken case by case

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

Reduced access to firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths. Shocking.

However, using this as proof that more gun control is needed only counts if you believe that people killed with guns are more dead than people killed with other weapons.

Britain has very strict gun regulation, no? Obviously fewer people are killed with guns. But what happened to the homicide rate when the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed?

It went up.

Their criminals are starting to use guns more and more. Their criminal gangs are immigrants who do not respect British culture, laws and police.......and they are bringing in more and more guns to take drug turf.

You mean criminals don't obey the law?!

 

[2aguy]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

Reduced access to firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths. Shocking.

However, using this as proof that more gun control is needed only counts if you believe that people killed with guns are more dead than people killed with other weapons.

Britain has very strict gun regulation, no? Obviously fewer people are killed with guns. But what happened to the homicide rate when the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed?

It went up.

I never said more gun control was needed. I said gun control is justified and necessary and not unconstitutional. If we are talking practically I'd say that we can always get rid of unnecessary laws that don't work and add new laws that would be more effective. Which ones those are should be taken case by case

Oh. So you say you don't want more gun control, you just want more gun control.

Let's stop dancing. Do you want to know the real reason Democrats support disarming legal gun owners?

Because armed people don't get on the cattle cars.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

If gun and ammo companies can be sued they will go out of biz. That is a major kill for the dems. No more new guns, then they just need to confiscate.

That is the plan.

They will end the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that protects gun makers and gun stores from lawsuits simply designed to bankrupt them for crimes they didn't commit.

 

[2aguy]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Sorry.....you are wrong.

If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.

The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.

You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Sorry.....you are wrong.

If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.

The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.

You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?

Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?