What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gun control is illogical and here's why.

Ray9

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,423
Reaction score
3,929
Points
1,970
We are living in a time where stupid is the new smart. If you are able to make the people stupid enough, you can take away all their rights. Example: Guns are inanimate objects that can be dangerous if misused. So, in order to live in a safe world some would take away all the guns from people even if they are not misusing them. The safety of the many trumps the individual right of the citizen for self-defense or so it goes.

An analogy: A car is an inanimate object that can be dangerous if misused. Alcohol related deaths with automobiles are skyrocketing in the US for various reasons. So, would it not make sense to take away all the cars from average citizens that do not misuse them in order to guarantee the safety of the many by taking away the right of the one to drive a car?

The logic is the same:




 
Last edited:

johngaltshrugged

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
4,714
Points
1,938
Good analogy I use myself.
People never recognize the slippery slope they embark on until they are on their ass heading for a cliff.
Knives & hammers are other inanimate objects that can be used for deadly ends. Do we ban those as well?
Guns are just a boogeyman proggies are conditioned to hate & fear
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
12,120
Reaction score
4,575
Points
345
IDK. That I cannot own an M1 Abrams is probably why some of my neighbors and relatives are still alive.
 

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
3,650
Reaction score
1,660
Points
188
Sadly, the anti's don't deal in logic. Sadder yet is that their zeal could be used for constructive efforts. As it is it's a wasted, divisive, agenda.
 

BoSoxGal

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
Plymouth Colony
We have common sense gun laws here in Massachusetts and nobody here is less free than those of you who live among the killing fields of regular mass shootings. I would argue we are more free than you are. Civilians don’t need assault weapons and large capacity magazines, civilians don’t need immediate access to firearms. If you can’t wait a few weeks and successfully navigate an in person conversation with a local law enforcement officer in order to obtain a license to purchase a firearm, you don’t need guns in your possession right now and maybe never. Don’t like the decision? Take it to a judge. Nobody is being denied due process here.
 

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
3,650
Reaction score
1,660
Points
188
We have common sense gun laws here in Massachusetts and nobody here is less free than those of you who live among the killing fields of regular mass shootings. I would argue we are more free than you are. Civilians don’t need assault weapons and large capacity magazines, civilians don’t need immediate access to firearms. If you can’t wait a few weeks and successfully navigate an in person conversation with a local law enforcement officer in order to obtain a license to purchase a firearm, you don’t need guns in your possession right now and maybe never. Don’t like the decision? Take it to a judge. Nobody is being denied due process here.
Tell us more about Massachusetts. Maybe we can benefit from your ideas.
 

BoSoxGal

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
Plymouth Colony
Tell us more about Massachusetts. Maybe we can benefit from your ideas.
I’m sure you could. We are the cradle of American Liberty, after all. Many of the best ideas about how to form and keep this Union have come from here.
 

BoSoxGal

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
Plymouth Colony
This article is from 2018 but discusses the most relevant laws we enjoy here:

Are Massachusetts Gun Laws a Model for the Country?​

The state has the lowest gun death rate in the country. Congress is considering a bill that would incentivize other states to copy its firearm policies.​

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey introduced a bill this month that would incentivize other states to adopt his state's gun laws, which advocates say have helped make Massachusetts the home of the lowest gun death rate in the country.

In 2016, 3.4 people per 100,000 died of gun violence in Massachusetts, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, in slightly less-populous Tennessee, the firearms death rate was nearly five times that, at 17.3 per 100,000.

The legislation comes in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., shooting, which killed 17 students and teachers and fueled nationwide calls for gun control. This past weekend, more than a million Americans participated in "March for Our Lives" protests around the country.


Markey's bill would allocate $20 million in Department of Justice grants each year for the next five years to states that adopt laws like those in Massachusetts.

Most well-known is the state's ban on assault weapons, signed in 2004 by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, who is currently running for U.S. Senate. The state also requires gun dealers to conduct background checks, mandates private sellers to verify that buyers have a valid gun license, bans “mentally defective” people from owning firearms, and requires weapons to be unloaded and locked away when not in use.

Those laws are far from common, but six states and D.C. ban assault weapons, as well as threaten criminal penalties for storing guns improperly around children. Five states let families and police remove guns from people determined to be at risk of harming themselves or others, going even further than Massachusetts' "mentally defective" statute.


Last year, Massachusetts became the first state to ban rapid-firing bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting. At least 15 states are currently considering similar bans, and several others have tightened up restrictions already in place.

But the state's gun policy touted most by Markey is one not often mentioned in debates on gun control at the national level. It gives police chiefs the authority to deny, suspend or revoke licenses for handguns and long guns.

“The involvement of police chiefs in the licensing process is key. We can’t overstate that enough,” Markey said at a press conference about his bill earlier this month.

Gun policy experts say this part of the law has been instrumental in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

“There are lots of cases where the police will go to a house multiple times for domestic violence, but there will be no charges or restraining order or anything,” says Jack McDevitt, who helped draft the state's gun laws as the former chair of the Massachusetts Committee to Reduce Gun Violence. “That person is not federally prohibited, but the police know this is a dangerous person. So they could turn his license application down.”

That doesn't mean police are rejecting gun applications left and right. McDevitt says 97 percent of gun license applicants in the state receive their license, suggesting that police aren't being overly restrictive about who can own a gun.

Still, gun rights groups have adamantly opposed the police-approval law in Massachusetts, arguing that it can result in law-abiding citizens losing their right to arm themselves.

Federal courts, however, struck down a challenge to the state law that claimed it violated the Second Amendment.

The law is a fairly unique one. Currently, only five other states and the District of Columbia have enacted a law allowing local law enforcement to approve or deny gun licenses -- California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey.

The bill introduced by Markey, a Democrat, doesn't have great chances for passage. The Republican-controlled Congress is unlikely to advance a bill that touts some of the strictest gun regulations in the country. The legislation will, however, bring light to Massachusetts' gun laws at a time when they are being debated in statehouses across the country.

But while Massachusetts' gun laws have had Republican support, it remains to be seen if many of these policies will be politically feasible in more conservative states. Republican politicians in Massachusetts have historically been more open to gun regulations. Charlie Baker, for instance, was the first Republican governor to join the States for Gun Safety, a multistate coalition meant to reduce gun violence and enact stricter gun regulations after the Parkland shooting. He has also come out in favor of a national ban on assault weapons.

Gun laws are not the only factor in Massachusetts’ low gun death rate. Gun ownership in the state, for instance, is low. And some states with even more restrictive gun laws -- like California -- have higher rates of gun death.

But McDevitt says the numbers speak for themselves.

“Massachusetts went from being the third-safest state to the safest state after the 2014 law,” he says. “We believe other states could benefit from this."
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
30,922
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Laws cannot prevent people from doing anything - they can only be used to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the purpose to prevent people from breaking other laws will fail; the restrictions included in these laws are thus unnecessary and ineffective.
Thus, the illogic of gun control.
 

BoSoxGal

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
Plymouth Colony
Laws cannot prevent people from doing anything - they can only be used to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the purpose to prevent people from breaking other laws will fail; the restrictions included in these laws are thus unnecessary and ineffective.
Thus, the illogic of gun control.
Silly assertion. The Uvalde shooter would not have been able to purchase two assault weapons and 375 bullets and high capacity magazines on his 18th birthday if Texas had the same laws as Massachusetts. The weapons and high capacity magazines wouldn’t have been available for legal purchase. He wouldn’t have qualified for a license because law enforcement would have known the information now emerging, that he had threatened a school shooting years ago and was involved in the juvenile justice system for some time.

If the gun laws of Massachusetts were the laws of the nation, there is no question that mass shootings would decline significantly.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
30,922
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Silly assertion. The Uvalde shooter would not have been able to purchase two assault weapons and 375 bullets and high capacity magazines on his 18th birthday if Texas had the same laws as Massachusetts.
False.
He could have bought a MA-compliant 'assault weapon' with the exact same functionality as the weapons he used.
The magazines and ammunition are both available on-line w/o restriction - never min the state had to prove a magazine in question was not possessed in-state prior to the ban.
If the gun laws of Massachusetts were the laws of the nation, there is no question that mass shootings would decline significantly.
Proven false., above.
MA law in his regard mirrors the 1994 AWB, which would have done nothing to prevent this shooting.

Thus: laws cannot prevent people from doing anything.
 
Last edited:

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
3,650
Reaction score
1,660
Points
188
This article is from 2018 but discusses the most relevant laws we enjoy here:
I like the idea of denying gun ownership to persons involved in repeat domestic abuse cases where violence against another is involved.
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
11,594
Points
2,138
We have common sense gun laws here in Massachusetts and nobody here is less free than those of you who live among the killing fields of regular mass shootings. I would argue we are more free than you are. Civilians don’t need assault weapons and large capacity magazines, civilians don’t need immediate access to firearms. If you can’t wait a few weeks and successfully navigate an in person conversation with a local law enforcement officer in order to obtain a license to purchase a firearm, you don’t need guns in your possession right now and maybe never. Don’t like the decision? Take it to a judge. Nobody is being denied due process here.

Bullshit.

Massachusetts is a "may issue" state, which means they can reject an application for an LTC (licesne to carry) for any reason whatsoever.

Any state that isn't a "shall issue" state is in a position to deny due process...
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
52,629
Reaction score
11,007
Points
2,040
We are living in a time where stupid is the new smart. If you are able to make the people stupid enough, you can take away all their rights. Example: Guns are inanimate objects that can be dangerous if misused. So, in order to live in a safe world some would take away all the guns from people even if they are not misusing them. The safety of the many trumps the individual right of the citizen for self-defense or so it goes.

An analogy: A car is an inanimate object that can be dangerous if misused. Alcohol related deaths with automobiles are skyrocketing in the US for various reasons. So, would it not make sense to take away all the cars from average citizens that do not misuse them in order to guarantee the safety of the many by taking away the right of the one to drive a car?

The logic is the same:




Very few are talking about taking away ALL guns.
 

BoSoxGal

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
Plymouth Colony
Bullshit.

Massachusetts is a "may issue" state, which means they can reject an application for an LTC (licesne to carry) for any reason whatsoever.

Any state that isn't a "shall issue" state is in a position to deny due process...
Totally untrue, due process and right of appeal before a court is part of the statute. And no, a lawyer isn’t required for that appeal.

Only ammosexuals would have issues with our gun laws. I really wish such people didn’t suffer from impotence in the absence of a firearm, so the rest of the country - 70-90% support the kind of laws we have here - could live in peace.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
44,707
Reaction score
6,881
Points
1,830
Silly assertion. The Uvalde shooter would not have been able to purchase two assault weapons and 375 bullets and high capacity magazines on his 18th birthday if Texas had the same laws as Massachusetts. The weapons and high capacity magazines wouldn’t have been available for legal purchase. He wouldn’t have qualified for a license because law enforcement would have known the information now emerging, that he had threatened a school shooting years ago and was involved in the juvenile justice system for some time.

If the gun laws of Massachusetts were the laws of the nation, there is no question that mass shootings would decline significantly.

What is an ''assault weapon''

''If the gun laws of Massachusetts were the laws of the nation, there is no question that mass shootings would decline significantly.''... because I say so.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
37,796
Reaction score
5,426
Points
1,130
We are living in a time where stupid is the new smart. If you are able to make the people stupid enough, you can take away all their rights. Example: Guns are inanimate objects that can be dangerous if misused. So, in order to live in a safe world some would take away all the guns from people even if they are not misusing them. The safety of the many trumps the individual right of the citizen for self-defense or so it goes.

An analogy: A car is an inanimate object that can be dangerous if misused. Alcohol related deaths with automobiles are skyrocketing in the US for various reasons. So, would it not make sense to take away all the cars from average citizens that do not misuse them in order to guarantee the safety of the many by taking away the right of the one to drive a car?

The logic is the same:





Thing is, with cars, you need to prove you can drive to be able to drive. They have a purpose which is more than just killing people. They get people places. When people misuse their cars, they get stopped from using their cars.

And, the US's death rate on the roads is HIGH. Compared to the UK for example, it's very high.

The UK has a road death rate of 2.9 per 100,000 people.
It has a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 people.

That's a road death + murder rate of 4.1

The US has a murder rate of 6.3 and a road death rate of 12.4

Kind of what happens when you have politicians who couldn't care less.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
23,736
Reaction score
7,477
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Silly assertion. The Uvalde shooter would not have been able to purchase two assault weapons and 375 bullets and high capacity magazines on his 18th birthday if Texas had the same laws as Massachusetts. The weapons and high capacity magazines wouldn’t have been available for legal purchase. He wouldn’t have qualified for a license because law enforcement would have known the information now emerging, that he had threatened a school shooting years ago and was involved in the juvenile justice system for some time.

If the gun laws of Massachusetts were the laws of the nation, there is no question that mass shootings would decline significantly.

Wrong.
Due to the War on Drugs, anyone, any age, and instantly buy an illegal gun as long as they are willing to pay a little more.
And since the goal is suicide, the cost really does not matter at all.

The first school shooting, going back to Klebolt and Harris, were too young to buy guns legally.
Made no difference.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
186,452
Reaction score
35,239
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
I managed to live sixty years without packing a heater.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
23,736
Reaction score
7,477
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Silly assertion. The Uvalde shooter would not have been able to purchase two assault weapons and 375 bullets and high capacity magazines on his 18th birthday if Texas had the same laws as Massachusetts. The weapons and high capacity magazines wouldn’t have been available for legal purchase. He wouldn’t have qualified for a license because law enforcement would have known the information now emerging, that he had threatened a school shooting years ago and was involved in the juvenile justice system for some time.

If the gun laws of Massachusetts were the laws of the nation, there is no question that mass shootings would decline significantly.

Nonsense.
The gun laws in Massachusetts reduces legal purchases only, and those intent on murder/suicide are not at all deterred from an illegal purchase.
So as long as we have the War on Drugs, then any sort of gun control is absurd and completely ineffective.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top