CDZ Gun Control

[Skull Pilot]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

First of all it's unreasonable to assume gun owners want to take on the government

SO start with reasonable premises

I didn't make that up, the fear of the government is one of the most common arguments for the need for the 2nd A.

Not really

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

Again to the 100th power, laws do not prevent crime.

Do we eliminate laws against theft or speeding since they do not prevent stealing or driving at an unsafe speed in a school zone?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

Again to the 100th power, laws do not prevent crime.

Do we eliminate laws against theft or speeding since they do not prevent stealing or driving at an unsafe speed in a school zone?

So then why do you keep proposing more gun laws when you acknowledge the fact that the ones we have don't stop gun violence?

 

[PredFan]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

Again to the 100th power, laws do not prevent crime.

Do we eliminate laws against theft or speeding since they do not prevent stealing or driving at an unsafe speed in a school zone?

Deflection noted.

If they don't do anything then don't make laws that restrict the rights of Americans. There should be a very good reason to pass a law that infringes on our rights. A law that can't be shown to actually work isn't a good enough reason.

 

[2aguy]

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

Again....what does licensing actually do....other than generate revenue for the state and create a crime where you can punish people who don't use guns to actually commit crimes.....?

Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

Cottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

Licensing allows a seller of a gun to know that the buyer has been vetted and found to meet the standards set by the legislature. For example, that the applicant is not a felon, has no record of violence, drug or alcohol addiction, has never been detained as a danger to him or her self and other characteristics which most of us agree would make gun ownership or possession a danger to the community.

It would also allow for those who choose to sell or buy a weapon for another who is unlicensed to loose said license, have their guns taken away and fines be assessed and or liberty taken away (jail or prison). The dude in the San Bernadino shooting for example could be arraigned and found complicit in the massacre.

And would criminals get a license to purchase their illegally obtained and owned and carried guns…no.

Would it matter for mass shooters who would get the appropriate license, get vetted…and then go out and shoot people.

Licensing is completely unnecessary, and does nothing to stop or reduce gun crime.

Felons, if caught in possession of a gun can be arrested, no need to license normal gun owners to do this. Felons simply get people with a current gun license to buy the guns for them…therefore licensing does not keep them from getting guns.

And then we reach the real point…..guns are legal products…..so owning them means you can't touch law abiding gun owners…so how to you get someone and punish them if they don't break the law…..you create laws that can be broken even if they don't use the gun to commit a crime…you create a gun license…so if they don't get one they are now felons. If they sell a legal product to an individual who knows that they cannot own a gun, you can get the law abiding seller and ruin his life.

The dude in San Bernadino is already complicit in a terrorist act. No need to license all the normal gun owners to get him……since he would have had a license to buy those guns anyway…right….? So licensing him would not have stopped the attack and doesn't do anything to prosecute him for aiding in a terrorist attack.

At each point your scheme to license gun owners has been shown to be mindless paperwork, that is unnecessary, useless at stopping criminals from getting guns, useless at stopping mass shooters from getting guns…

What is the real purpose……you can turn normal gun owners, law abiding citizens who have never used their guns to commit a crime, and will never use their guns to commit a crime……into felons for simple clerical errors or for selling a legal product.

A gun is as legal as a computer. And if you sell a computer to a child molestor who cannot by law have access to a computer you are not arrested and turned into a felon…..they arrest the guy who actually broke the law.

You could care less about the actual criminals using the guns…they only murder 8,124 people and you can already lock them up for that……

What you want…is to be able to arrest the owners of the other 356,991,876 guns in the country that you can't get…because they aren't using those guns to break the law…..

But if you create licensing schemes…….you make them vulnerable…….and you then have a chance to get them and ruin their lives...

 

[Ringel05]

Gun Control

 

[Fishlore]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.

The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades.

Actually, that is both a lie of anti gun extremists and one of their fantasies......polling shows that gun ownership is the same or higher than it was...we now have over 357 million guns in private hands with over 13 million people actually carrying guns...

And you know what.....

Our gun murder rate has gone down.....

Our gun suicide rate has gone down....

Our gun accident rate has gone down......

Explain that please.

No, my ill-mannered friend, it is not a lie. It is not even a mistake. It is a piece of hard data as the following link shows. The real question isn't why you don't know what you are bellowing about, it is why you assume that someone who is simply better informed than you is trying to deliberately deceive you. Such boorishness places you on my ignore list. Bye-bye

"The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.
Gun Ownership Declining, General Social Survey Shows

 

[PredFan]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.

The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades.

Actually, that is both a lie of anti gun extremists and one of their fantasies......polling shows that gun ownership is the same or higher than it was...we now have over 357 million guns in private hands with over 13 million people actually carrying guns...

And you know what.....

Our gun murder rate has gone down.....

Our gun suicide rate has gone down....

Our gun accident rate has gone down......

Explain that please.

No, my ill-mannered friend, it is not a lie. It is not even a mistake. It is a piece of hard data as the following link shows. The real question isn't why you don't know what you are bellowing about, it is why you assume that someone who is simply better informed than you is trying to deliberately deceive you. Such boorishness places you on my ignore list. Bye-bye

"The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.
Gun Ownership Declining, General Social Survey Shows

"A highly regarded source of data.." By people who like what it says.

On the contrary, CCW classes are packed with young people who own guns for the first time.

There is surveys, and there is reality.

 

[2aguy]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

Again....what does licensing actually do....other than generate revenue for the state and create a crime where you can punish people who don't use guns to actually commit crimes.....?

Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

Cottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

Licensing allows a seller of a gun to know that the buyer has been vetted and found to meet the standards set by the legislature. For example, that the applicant is not a felon, has no record of violence, drug or alcohol addiction, has never been detained as a danger to him or her self and other characteristics which most of us agree would make gun ownership or possession a danger to the community.

It would also allow for those who choose to sell or buy a weapon for another who is unlicensed to loose said license, have their guns taken away and fines be assessed and or liberty taken away (jail or prison). The dude in the San Bernadino shooting for example could be arraigned and found complicit in the massacre.

And would criminals get a license to purchase their illegally obtained and owned and carried guns…no.

Would it matter for mass shooters who would get the appropriate license, get vetted…and then go out and shoot people.

Licensing is completely unnecessary, and does nothing to stop or reduce gun crime.

Felons, if caught in possession of a gun can be arrested, no need to license normal gun owners to do this. Felons simply get people with a current gun license to buy the guns for them…therefore licensing does not keep them from getting guns.

And then we reach the real point…..guns are legal products…..so owning them means you can't touch law abiding gun owners…so how to you get someone and punish them if they don't break the law…..you create laws that can be broken even if they don't use the gun to commit a crime…you create a gun license…so if they don't get one they are now felons. If they sell a legal product to an individual who knows that they cannot own a gun, you can get the law abiding seller and ruin his life.

The dude in San Bernadino is already complicit in a terrorist act. No need to license all the normal gun owners to get him……since he would have had a license to buy those guns anyway…right….? So licensing him would not have stopped the attack and doesn't do anything to prosecute him for aiding in a terrorist attack.

At each point your scheme to license gun owners has been shown to be mindless paperwork, that is unnecessary, useless at stopping criminals from getting guns, useless at stopping mass shooters from getting guns…

What is the real purpose……you can turn normal gun owners, law abiding citizens who have never used their guns to commit a crime, and will never use their guns to commit a crime……into felons for simple clerical errors or for selling a legal product.

A gun is as legal as a computer. And if you sell a computer to a child molestor who cannot by law have access to a computer you are not arrested and turned into a felon…..they arrest the guy who actually broke the law.

You could care less about the actual criminals using the guns…they only murder 8,124 people and you can already lock them up for that……

What you want…is to be able to arrest the owners of the other 356,991,876 guns in the country that you can't get…because they aren't using those guns to break the law…..

But if you create licensing schemes…….you make them vulnerable…….and you then have a chance to get them and ruin their lives...

How much straw do you use in a week?

Now that I have shown that licensing gun owners is dumb….

How do you propose to pay for licensing gun owners? Gun ownership is a Right, not a privilege so you can't put a fee on it that makes the exercise of that Right out of reach of the poor……so who pays for it…?

 

[2aguy]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.

The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades.

Actually, that is both a lie of anti gun extremists and one of their fantasies......polling shows that gun ownership is the same or higher than it was...we now have over 357 million guns in private hands with over 13 million people actually carrying guns...

And you know what.....

Our gun murder rate has gone down.....

Our gun suicide rate has gone down....

Our gun accident rate has gone down......

Explain that please.

No, my ill-mannered friend, it is not a lie. It is not even a mistake. It is a piece of hard data as the following link shows. The real question isn't why you don't know what you are bellowing about, it is why you assume that someone who is simply better informed than you is trying to deliberately deceive you. Such boorishness places you on my ignore list. Bye-bye

"The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.
Gun Ownership Declining, General Social Survey Shows

The General Social Survey is run by an anti gunner…and is the only survey that shows this…

Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased

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.

-------------------------------
Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations.

Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.

The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post.

These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.

A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an even more stable pattern, with household gun ownership between 44 and 46 percent in 1999. In 2013, the ownership rate was 43 percent.

There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014.

 

[Arianrhod]

Little perspective from a Navy SEAL:

I’ve been in dark rooms with “good-guys and bad guys” going at it with guns, and let me tell you something:

Gunfights are crazy.

Gunfights are hard.

On my final combat mission, I was shot in the leg with an AK-47 from about 30 feet away and it blew my femur in half.

I hope that was my last gunfight.

Here at home, there are almost 13 million Americans who have a license to carry a concealed weapon. The vast majority of them are responsible, law-abiding and good-hearted people. Many of them want to be prepared to be the good guy, to do the right thing and to save lives.

I hope they never have to face being the target of a dangerous person with a gun. Because it’s hard to make the right decisions.

There are groups of individuals, like me and my fellow Special Operators, both military and law enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters shooting: shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger — all while being shot at by the enemy.

And after dedicating their lives to being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those professionals make mistakes.

Then consider that people like us trained for firefights for years, and that in many states there is virtually no training required for someone to legally carry a loaded, hidden gun.

So think about 10 or 15 people, who are weekend shooters with limited tactical training, deciding to shoot it out with a criminal in a crowded office holiday party, a medical clinic or a darkened theater, while people are screaming and running, and no one knows who or how many of the people shooting are the “good guys” and how many of them are the “bad guys.”

In some cases, can a “good guy” with a gun neutralize the threat and help save lives? Absolutely. But it doesn’t happen very often. It is, for the most part, a myth perpetuated by people who’ve never been shot at.

I am a proud Navy combat veteran. I risked and nearly gave my life in dozens of combat situations in defense of our Constitution. I value the Second Amendment and the right of responsible Americans to own guns for self-defense.

But people need to know that it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can be expected to make all the right choices in a dangerous, fast-moving situation like a mass shooting with high-powered weapons.

When the bullets are flying, determining “who's who in the zoo” is hard.

 

[PredFan]

I have been personally responsible for getting two young nurses at work interested in guns to the point where they purchased one. One other approached me yesterday asking for advice on purchasing one, and we have a group of nurses and other healthcare workers who go to the range regularly. Half of them don't yet own a gun.

The anti-gun paranoids can fool themselves all they want to. We will continue to fight for our rights and continue to win.

 

[Arianrhod]

I have been personally responsible for getting two young nurses at work interested in guns to the point where they purchased one. One other approached me yesterday asking for advice on purchasing one, and we have a group of nurses and other healthcare workers who go to the range regularly. Half of them don't yet own a gun.

The anti-gun paranoids can fool themselves all they want to. We will continue to fight for our rights and continue to win.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[PredFan]

I have been personally responsible for getting two young nurses at work interested in guns to the point where they purchased one. One other approached me yesterday asking for advice on purchasing one, and we have a group of nurses and other healthcare workers who go to the range regularly. Half of them don't yet own a gun.

The anti-gun paranoids can fool themselves all they want to. We will continue to fight for our rights and continue to win.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

You have evidence to the contrary that I have helped two nurses buy guns?

You have evidence to the contrary that there is a group of us that go to the range?

You have evidence to the contrary that we will fight for our rights?

I have evidence that shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."

You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.

There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.

 

[Onyx]

I laugh when people make the "It is hopeless" argument. Liberals love this argument in response to gun control and limited government debates.

I see people admitting that the government is too big and powerful to resist, all the while advocating for gun control. Unlike some people, I do not believe in giving up and making the best of a terrible situation.

 

[2aguy]

Little perspective from a Navy SEAL:

I’ve been in dark rooms with “good-guys and bad guys” going at it with guns, and let me tell you something:

Gunfights are crazy.

Gunfights are hard.

On my final combat mission, I was shot in the leg with an AK-47 from about 30 feet away and it blew my femur in half.

I hope that was my last gunfight.

Here at home, there are almost 13 million Americans who have a license to carry a concealed weapon. The vast majority of them are responsible, law-abiding and good-hearted people. Many of them want to be prepared to be the good guy, to do the right thing and to save lives.

I hope they never have to face being the target of a dangerous person with a gun. Because it’s hard to make the right decisions.

There are groups of individuals, like me and my fellow Special Operators, both military and law enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters shooting: shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger — all while being shot at by the enemy.

And after dedicating their lives to being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those professionals make mistakes.

Then consider that people like us trained for firefights for years, and that in many states there is virtually no training required for someone to legally carry a loaded, hidden gun.

So think about 10 or 15 people, who are weekend shooters with limited tactical training, deciding to shoot it out with a criminal in a crowded office holiday party, a medical clinic or a darkened theater, while people are screaming and running, and no one knows who or how many of the people shooting are the “good guys” and how many of them are the “bad guys.”

In some cases, can a “good guy” with a gun neutralize the threat and help save lives? Absolutely. But it doesn’t happen very often. It is, for the most part, a myth perpetuated by people who’ve never been shot at.

I am a proud Navy combat veteran. I risked and nearly gave my life in dozens of combat situations in defense of our Constitution. I value the Second Amendment and the right of responsible Americans to own guns for self-defense.

But people need to know that it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can be expected to make all the right choices in a dangerous, fast-moving situation like a mass shooting with high-powered weapons.

When the bullets are flying, determining “who's who in the zoo” is hard.

And of course not everyone needs to be a Navy Seal to defend themselves...that is why guns are so important.....go to "TheArmedCitizen" and read the stories...you won't find Navy Seals there....but you will find senior citizens, women, men......some with very little training or experience handling themselves responsibly in the face of violent criminal attack...

And this navy Seal suffers from tunnel vision.....and a superiority complex.......normal people are quite capable as has been shown countless times....can they swim the length of a pool on one breath, or run a Marathon or swim 5 miles....no.....but in that moment...when their lives are on the line, they have shown over and over they can do the right thing.

And of course he would have to explain the people who did stop mass shooters...who aren't navy Seals.....

 

[westwall]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.

The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades.

Actually, that is both a lie of anti gun extremists and one of their fantasies......polling shows that gun ownership is the same or higher than it was...we now have over 357 million guns in private hands with over 13 million people actually carrying guns...

And you know what.....

Our gun murder rate has gone down.....

Our gun suicide rate has gone down....

Our gun accident rate has gone down......

Explain that please.

No, my ill-mannered friend, it is not a lie. It is not even a mistake. It is a piece of hard data as the following link shows. The real question isn't why you don't know what you are bellowing about, it is why you assume that someone who is simply better informed than you is trying to deliberately deceive you. Such boorishness places you on my ignore list. Bye-bye

"The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.
Gun Ownership Declining, General Social Survey Shows

Yeah, I'm going to tell a survey taker I have guns. Why is that exactly? In this world of phishing and ID theft you will find that very few people, especially gun owners, will tell anybody anything even remotely truthful about what guns they own.

What is absolutely unarguable is that Americans are buying guns in record numbers and let me clue you in here....those of us who wanted them....we already have them.

The survey was a propaganda piece. I have never seen a single link to the questions they supposedly asked or the metrics used to calculate the so called results.

In other words it is a lie.

 

[westwall]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

Again to the 100th power, laws do not prevent crime.

Do we eliminate laws against theft or speeding since they do not prevent stealing or driving at an unsafe speed in a school zone?

Exactly. Laws don't reduce crime. So why have them? Riddle me that batman.

 

[2aguy]

Little perspective from a Navy SEAL:

I’ve been in dark rooms with “good-guys and bad guys” going at it with guns, and let me tell you something:

Gunfights are crazy.

Gunfights are hard.

On my final combat mission, I was shot in the leg with an AK-47 from about 30 feet away and it blew my femur in half.

I hope that was my last gunfight.

Here at home, there are almost 13 million Americans who have a license to carry a concealed weapon. The vast majority of them are responsible, law-abiding and good-hearted people. Many of them want to be prepared to be the good guy, to do the right thing and to save lives.

I hope they never have to face being the target of a dangerous person with a gun. Because it’s hard to make the right decisions.

There are groups of individuals, like me and my fellow Special Operators, both military and law enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters shooting: shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger — all while being shot at by the enemy.

And after dedicating their lives to being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those professionals make mistakes.

Then consider that people like us trained for firefights for years, and that in many states there is virtually no training required for someone to legally carry a loaded, hidden gun.

So think about 10 or 15 people, who are weekend shooters with limited tactical training, deciding to shoot it out with a criminal in a crowded office holiday party, a medical clinic or a darkened theater, while people are screaming and running, and no one knows who or how many of the people shooting are the “good guys” and how many of them are the “bad guys.”

In some cases, can a “good guy” with a gun neutralize the threat and help save lives? Absolutely. But it doesn’t happen very often. It is, for the most part, a myth perpetuated by people who’ve never been shot at.

I am a proud Navy combat veteran. I risked and nearly gave my life in dozens of combat situations in defense of our Constitution. I value the Second Amendment and the right of responsible Americans to own guns for self-defense.

But people need to know that it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can be expected to make all the right choices in a dangerous, fast-moving situation like a mass shooting with high-powered weapons.

When the bullets are flying, determining “who's who in the zoo” is hard.

Then he will have to explain the differences in these shootings and the outcomes….

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”