CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[2aguy]

Going from a 14,000 per year epidemic to 8,000 per year isn't 55% and isn't a cure.

US murders
1993: 24526
2014: 11961 = 12565 fewer murders = 51.23%
US Gun related murders:
1993: 17413
2014: 8124 = 9289 fewer murders = 53.31%

The point demonstrated here is that your claim of an "epidemic" is ignorant and/or dishonest hyperbole

Uh, no not really.

Which kills more Americans: Guns or cars?

That's an epidemic /\/\/\/\

Cars kill more people....

Accidental gun death 2014... 586

Accidental car death...33,000

Lies, damned lies, and 2aguy's statistics.

Those are actually bodies........from the CDC........they count them.....please...think before you post....

 

[2aguy]

Going from a 14,000 per year epidemic to 8,000 per year isn't 55% and isn't a cure.

US murders
1993: 24526
2014: 11961 = 12565 fewer murders = 51.23%
US Gun related murders:
1993: 17413
2014: 8124 = 9289 fewer murders = 53.31%

The point demonstrated here is that your claim of an "epidemic" is ignorant and/or dishonest hyperbole

Uh, no not really.

Which kills more Americans: Guns or cars?

That's an epidemic /\/\/\/\

And here are some actual stats on suicide by country.....

World suicide rates by country

World suicide rates by country

Per 100,000


Hungary ... 21.0
Belgium .... 18.4
Finland... 16.5
France... 14.6
Poland... 13.8
Austria... 13.8
Czech Republic... 12.7
New Zealand.... 11.9
Denmark... 11.3
Sweden..............11.1
Norway...............10.9
Iceland................10.4
Germany.............10.3
Canada...............10.2

United States.......10.1

And another list....
Here Are The Countries With The Worst Suicide Rates

 

[2aguy]

Going from a 14,000 per year epidemic to 8,000 per year isn't 55% and isn't a cure.

US murders
1993: 24526
2014: 11961 = 12565 fewer murders = 51.23%
US Gun related murders:
1993: 17413
2014: 8124 = 9289 fewer murders = 53.31%
The point demonstrated here is that your claim of an "epidemic" is ignorant and/or dishonest hyperbole

Uh, no not really.

Yes. Really. Your graph does nothing to disprove my post.

"Epidemic" remains a term of mindless hyperbole

Now, go find a different talking point.

We've had more people die in this country from gun violence since 2001 than all U.S. soldiers during WWII. We've had more people die in the past 6 weeks from gun violence than terrorism since 2001.

What, exactly, is an epidemic to you? Gun violence fits all the definitions of one. And it's spreading. The more people who have guns, the more people feel they need guns (thanks to the blatant scare tactics by the NRA). It fits every definition of a disease.

Gun violence fits all the definitions of one.


No it doesn't...first...a disease does not act on it's own...it has no control over how it is spread....guns are used in an action by a human who makes a decision....

Again....

200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s, 357,000,000 million guns in private hands in 2016......and the gun murder rate went down 49%.............

I am pretty sure that is not how an epidemic works.........

And of course the medical anti gunners want to use a disease model...because it is the only model they can massage enough to get people emotional over guns......since facts and the truth don't support anything the anti gunners believe....

 

[alang1216]

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

If you are looking for a law that will prevent ALL murders you're asking the impossible. If you are looking for a law that will prevent a few murders you're asking something easy.

Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

 

[alang1216]

If there is money allocated it will happen. I have no problem tying state or federal gun control laws to training funding. Congress can mandate you can't have one without the other.

A free class to educate voters? I'm OK with it so long as it isn't targeted at a particular group. Considering the state of our government it's worth a shot.

So...you are fine with not letting blacks vote without passing a literacy test, or a test on how the government works...right? As long as it was free..right?

A literacy test is your suggestion and it fails my test: "I'm OK with it so long as it isn't targeted at a particular group" since it is aimed at illiterates and blacks. I proposed a civics course, written or oral, given in the persons preferred language.

 

[alang1216]

And yet drugs are are used and people speed.........357,000,000 guns in private hands less than 8,124 of them are so see to commit mirder...our gun laws already work.....

So 8,124 lives is an acceptable number? Mission accomplished, we can all go home now. Remember each life affects many others so there are many more victims, they just have to live with the loss.

I think every life matters but we owe a special responsibility to cops to do everything we can to keep them safe.

 

[alang1216]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

 

[2aguy]

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

If you are looking for a law that will prevent ALL murders you're asking the impossible. If you are looking for a law that will prevent a few murders you're asking something easy.

Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

Actually no......our non gun murder rate is higher than the total in Britain........

Non of your proposals will do even that.

Our concept of locking up criminals who commit crimes with guns...will actually save lives.....

 

[2aguy]

And yet drugs are are used and people speed.........357,000,000 guns in private hands less than 8,124 of them are so see to commit mirder...our gun laws already work.....

So 8,124 lives is an acceptable number? Mission accomplished, we can all go home now. Remember each life affects many others so there are many more victims, they just have to live with the loss.

I think every life matters but we owe a special responsibility to cops to do everything we can to keep them safe.

Nope...never said that.....but non of the proposals you have made will make a dent in that number...why? Because 90% of those shooters are career criminals who are already banned from legally owning or carrying guns...and 70-80% of the victims are also criminals....

The only way to reduce that number even more.....lock up felons who are caught with guns....for 30 years....at least violent felons....they are the ones actually shooting people.....your continued focus on more paperwork and bureaucratic hoops for non violent, law abiding people is a distraction from actually dealing with the problem. The cops know who these guys are...it is the same in every city......in chicago we have 3 million people and 1,300 known criminals ....many who have already been caught, as felons with illegal guns.........but the prosecutors and judges simply refuse to treat the gun crime and illegal gun possession seriously........that is why they keep getting out and keep shooting people.........

Do you actually want to stop gun murder...to lower it beyond the already 49% decrease in gun murder since the 1990s.....or do you want to focus on hassling law abiding gun owners who don't use their guns for crime....?

 

[2aguy]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

No it isn't.....you are falling for the anti gun argument that normal people turn into killers and criminals simply because they have a gun...that is a lie...that is a myth......90% of all murder is committed by people with long histories of violence and crime going back to their teenage years.....they are not the John Q. Citizen who buys a gun for self defense who suddenly gets an urge to rob a store or shoot his neighbor......and as long as you focus on the normal, law abiding gun owner, you won't be solving the actual problem....

Do you even think about the numbers and what they mean....

357,000,000 guns in private hands........

about 90 million homes with guns....

And 8,124 gun murders in 2014.....90% of which are committed by peope who can't buy, own or carry a gun shooting 70-80% of victims who are also career criminals....

90,000,000 vs 8,124

Please..try to grasp the significance of those numbers...guns are not the issue........normal gun owners are not the issue...if they were you would have a lot more gun murders than 8,124.............

Focus on taking out actual criminals....

 

[2aguy]

If there is money allocated it will happen. I have no problem tying state or federal gun control laws to training funding. Congress can mandate you can't have one without the other.

A free class to educate voters? I'm OK with it so long as it isn't targeted at a particular group. Considering the state of our government it's worth a shot.

So...you are fine with not letting blacks vote without passing a literacy test, or a test on how the government works...right? As long as it was free..right?

A literacy test is your suggestion and it fails my test: "I'm OK with it so long as it isn't targeted at a particular group" since it is aimed at illiterates and blacks. I proposed a civics course, written or oral, given in the persons preferred language.

Sorry.....you can't have a test of any kind for a basic Right......that isn't how Rights work....do you propose that all journalists register with the government and have their sources and stories vetted by federal agents? Basic Rights do not have to be applied for ....they exist wether you like them or not.

 

[alang1216]

Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

Actually no......our non gun murder rate is higher than the total in Britain........

Non of your proposals will do even that.

Our concept of locking up criminals who commit crimes with guns...will actually save lives.....

Now you're being absurd. If there were no more guns in the US do you really believe the US murder rate would be unchanged? Likely the number of suicides would also plummet but that is another matter.

 

[alang1216]

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

No it isn't.....you are falling for the anti gun argument that normal people turn into killers and criminals simply because they have a gun...that is a lie...that is a myth......

Obviously the vast majority of gun owners don't ever commit a crime. However, 100% of criminals who use guns began life as people with no history of violence and crime.

 

[2aguy]

Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

Actually no......our non gun murder rate is higher than the total in Britain........

Non of your proposals will do even that.

Our concept of locking up criminals who commit crimes with guns...will actually save lives.....

Now you're being absurd. If there were no more guns in the US do you really believe the US murder rate would be unchanged? Likely the number of suicides would also plummet but that is another matter.

Yes....the criminals will still get guns and they will still use them to kill.....and there will be 1,500,000 times a year that an Armed American will no longer be armed...and will be the victim of rape, robbery and murder......

There was a period of time in our history where guns never existed....and people were still slaughtered............

Criminals in this country are willing to murder...access to guns doesn't cause that...single teenage mothers for generations causes that...

 

[2aguy]

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

No it isn't.....you are falling for the anti gun argument that normal people turn into killers and criminals simply because they have a gun...that is a lie...that is a myth......

Obviously the vast majority of gun owners don't ever commit a crime. However, 100% of criminals who use guns began life as people with no history of violence and crime.

Wrong...they are violent from their teen years...they are not normal people....90% of the killers are violent criminals with records going back to their teen years,not normal peole who suddenly go bad.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

We've had more people die in this country from gun violence since 2001 than all U.S. soldiers during WWII. We've had more people die in the past 6 weeks from gun violence than terrorism since 2001.

Ah - you found a new talking point. Good.

None of this changes the fact that gun violence has declined steeply over the last 20+ years.
I know you wish that weren't the case, but it is.

What, exactly, is an epidemic to you? Gun violence fits all the definitions of one. And it's spreading.

If by 'spreading" you mean "falling like a rock", then yes.

For every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your response: It's an epidemic! We need more gun control!

 

[M14 Shooter]

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

If you are looking for a law that will prevent ALL murders you're asking the impossible. If you are looking for a law that will prevent a few murders you're asking something easy.
Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

And now... suggest something that could actually happen.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A literacy test is your suggestion and it fails my test: "I'm OK with it so long as it isn't targeted at a particular group" since it is aimed at illiterates and blacks. I proposed a civics course, written or oral, given in the persons preferred language.

Why do yo not understand that any kind of competency test for the exercise of a right violates the constitution?

 

[alang1216]

Sorry.....you can't have a test of any kind for a basic Right......that isn't how Rights work....do you propose that all journalists register with the government and have their sources and stories vetted by federal agents? Basic Rights do not have to be applied for ....they exist wether you like them or not.

Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

The 2nd as you interpret it is something new to the US, pretty much invented in 2008.

• In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[86]

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[87]

• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[88]

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet drugs are are used and people speed.........357,000,000 guns in private hands less than 8,124 of them are so see to commit mirder...our gun laws already work.....

So 8,124 lives is an acceptable number?

8124 murders with a firearm... 357,000,000 guns.
99.99773% of guns in the use are -not- used to commit murder
Your reaction: "If we get rid of all guns...."
Certainly, you see how your idea is utter nonsense.