Gun owner paranoia---

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
29,719
Reaction score
14,030
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
Do you notice any similarities in these places?????????????????
Yupper, I do.
  • Poverty.
  • Years, decades, of racial inequity.
  • Too many friggin' guns.

Guns aren't the issue....lots of guns in lots of places and very low crime rates.........

Gun control doesn't effect gun crime rates.......access to guns doesn't increase gun crime rates....

Over 27 years as more Americans own and carry guns in public for self defense...our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....

This means that normal Americans who own and carry guns do not cause gun crime.....so it isn't "Guns" that is the problem....

What is the problem?

The problem is the criminal justice policies of the democrat party......the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing violent criminals from jail and prison......this is the only problem we have with our crime levels that isn't related to fatherless homes.

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


So your point...."Too many Friggin guns..." is not true or accurate...
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
29,719
Reaction score
14,030
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
Do you notice any similarities in these places?????????????????
Yupper, I do.
  • Poverty.
  • Years, decades, of racial inequity.
  • Too many friggin' guns.

Guns aren't the issue....lots of guns in lots of places and very low crime rates.........

Gun control doesn't effect gun crime rates.......access to guns doesn't increase gun crime rates....

Over 27 years as more Americans own and carry guns in public for self defense...our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....

This means that normal Americans who own and carry guns do not cause gun crime.....so it isn't "Guns" that is the problem....

What is the problem?

The problem is the criminal justice policies of the democrat party......the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing violent criminals from jail and prison......this is the only problem we have with our crime levels that isn't related to fatherless homes.

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


So your point...."Too many Friggin guns..." is not true or accurate...
...and inversely, so is crime. It's amazing how those two coincide in opposing fashion.
:beer:
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
Do you notice any similarities in these places?????????????????
Yupper, I do.
  • Poverty.
  • Years, decades, of racial inequity.
  • Too many friggin' guns.
Actually the number of guns per capita is less in urban areas than it is in other places.

In fact.......

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas. These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.
--------

A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death.

In regions of the country won by Republicans, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.
----
In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.


 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
Do you notice any similarities in these places?????????????????
Yupper, I do.
  • Poverty.
  • Years, decades, of racial inequity.
  • Too many friggin' guns.

Also.....since normal Americans who own and carry guns ....for self defense, sport, and competition....do not use their legal guns for crime.......

Gun control does not effect gun crime rates..since criminals ignore the laws and normal gun owners don't break them....

Gun control laws are just dumb...

we must examine the data, follow the science, and do the math on gun control and violent crime. To accomplish this, consider the most recent full year of data from the FBI publication "Crime in the US, 2019" and a legal expert's rating on the relative severity of gun control in each state from the Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States. Data from these sources is graphed for each state and presented in Figure 1. The blue dots indicate the crime rate per 100,000 state residents. The higher the blue dot is on the graph, the greater the violent crime rate for that state. Crime rate values are displayed on the right-hand vertical axis. The relative firearm freedom in each state is indicated with a red bar. A short red bar indicates that a state has very restrictive firearm laws. A tall red bar indicates a relatively high acceptance of residents' 2nd Amendment rights. The relative firearm freedom rating, from 0 for total prohibition to 100 for total freedom, is displayed on the left-hand vertical axis.

With the states arranged in order of decreasing violent crime rate from left to right, all it takes is a glance at the figure, and it is obvious that there is no discernible relationship between the two data sets.


This means that there is no link between the rate of violent crime in a state and a state's firearm freedom. The only valid conclusion is that gun control does not have a predictable outcome regarding violent crime.

Is it any wonder that the volumes of state and federal gun control legislation do not have much impact on our violent crime rates? Yet year after year, our legislators add more gun control laws to the books, expecting different results each time.




Read more: Data show gun control doesn't reduce US violent crime
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

schmidlap

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
1,599
Points
893
it doesn't take ending the 2nd Amendment to ban and confiscate guns........ ending the lawful commerce in arms act is the first big step after putting anti-gun judges on the courts.........
Our government of, by, and for the People is empowered by the People to determine the proper regulation of firearms as sanctioned under the Second Amendment.

Neither unbridled permissiveness nor confiscatory excess has ever been legislated.

..."yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
 

dannyboys

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
15,559
Reaction score
2,654
Points
280

schmidlap

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
1,599
Points
893
... Everyone of them carries an illegal gun.
Really? Whose lucrative market is that? Or are they all stolen from righteous folks in the suburbs?

Did Biden eliminating windows in the suburbs reduce the rate at which guns are stolen?

Trump said that Biden plans to

Screen Shot 2020-03-17 at 11.17.06 AM.png

"... mandate net-zero carbon emissions for homes,
offices and all new buildings by 2030!

That basically means no windows, no nothing!"
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
4,242
Points
290
Do you notice any similarities in these places?????????????????
Yupper, I do.
  • Poverty.
  • Years, decades, of racial inequity.
  • Too many friggin' guns.
Actually the number of guns per capita is less in urban areas than it is in other places.
BULLSHIT!
Every fucking inner city shithole is populated by fucking gangbangers. Everyone of them carries an illegal gun.
What part of the term per capita do you not understand?
 

Chillicothe

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
816
Reaction score
436
Points
883
BULLSHIT!
Every fucking inner city shithole is populated by fucking gangbangers. Everyone of them carries an illegal gun.
(underlining added for emphasis)

A country boy?
No experience living in a large urban area?
Unworldly? Uninformed? Maybe a touch racist?
Certainly, a bit inarticulate, to boot.


But, I dunno for sure. You be the judge.
 

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
12,078
Reaction score
8,537
Points
2,255
I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

A lot of death and destruction has been caused by weapons in the hands of the wrong person. We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

If you don't have that insurance, you go to prison and are never allowed to legally own a weapon again.

Everyone should be fully responsible for their actions or words.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

A lot of death and destruction has been caused by weapons in the hands of the wrong person. We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

If you don't have that insurance, you go to prison and are never allowed to legally own a weapon again.

Everyone should be fully responsible for their actions or words.

You are an idiot....someone steals your gun, and uses it illegally and you are the one who has to pay for the damage?

Are you this fucking stupid in real life, or just when you post?

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives......should we pay them for the lives saved.....? Give them a percentage of the money saved when those lives are saved......? You doofus.
 

Chillicothe

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
816
Reaction score
436
Points
883
You are an idiot....someone steals your gun, and uses it illegally and you are the one who has to pay for the damage?
Are you this fucking stupid in real life, or just when you post?
You doofus.
..................................................................................................

Some folks must use what tools they have to deal with the grievances they feel have beset their life. And if "f*cking stupid ", "an idiot", "doofus" are their best tools in the toolbox, well, let's not the rest of us be too judgmental.
Tho yes, it is true with the old adage: "By thy words we shall know thee."
Still let us not judge too harshly. It is the internet you know. Anonymous postings under fake names. No harm, no foul.

So, moving on beyond the demonstrated inarticulateness and limited vocabulary hurdles, let us try to address the poster's grievance.
He states: "you are the one who has to pay for the damage?"

Ummm, nope. My avatar didn't say THAT.

What he said was: The careless gun-owner who allowed his weapon to be stolen bears a responsibility, a liability, for the harm that weapon caused. The actual trigger-puller bears MOST of the responsibility.
But the careless owner is NOT blameless.

After all, if not for his agency in bringing that weapon into society, it would not have caused whatever damage it inflicted.

You buy a gun. You buy the liability that comes with it.
.......................................................................................................................

And then on a more constructive posting, the poster "Dana" offers common sense solution to this increased liability.
To wit:

I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
You are an idiot....someone steals your gun, and uses it illegally and you are the one who has to pay for the damage?
Are you this fucking stupid in real life, or just when you post?
You doofus.
..................................................................................................

Some folks must use what tools they have to deal with the grievances they feel have beset their life. And if "f*cking stupid ", "an idiot", "doofus" are their best tools in the toolbox, well, let's not the rest of us be too judgmental.
Tho yes, it is true with the old adage: "By thy words we shall know thee."
Still let us not judge too harshly. It is the internet you know. Anonymous postings under fake names. No harm, no foul.

So, moving on beyond the demonstrated inarticulateness and limited vocabulary hurdles, let us try to address the poster's grievance.
He states: "you are the one who has to pay for the damage?"

Ummm, nope. My avatar didn't say THAT.

What he said was: The careless gun-owner who allowed his weapon to be stolen bears a responsibility, a liability, for the harm that weapon caused. The actual trigger-puller bears MOST of the responsibility.
But the careless owner is NOT blameless.

After all, if not for his agency in bringing that weapon into society, it would not have caused whatever damage it inflicted.

You buy a gun. You buy the liability that comes with it.
.......................................................................................................................

And then on a more constructive posting, the poster "Dana" offers common sense solution to this increased liability.
To wit:

I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.


Wrong.....what he said was if someone breaks into your home, and steals your gun, he wants you to be punished.......you moron.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives from rape, robbery and murder.....you want them to be punished if they are the victims of a crime.

How about we force the democrat party to pay for the crimes of the criminals who steal these weapons...since it is the democrat party that keeps releasing these violent criminals over and over again, causing all the pain and suffering in the first place.

You can pretend this isn't what he/she/it meant but you would be lying.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
70,627
Reaction score
18,407
Points
2,290
I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

A lot of death and destruction has been caused by weapons in the hands of the wrong person. We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

If you don't have that insurance, you go to prison and are never allowed to legally own a weapon again.

Everyone should be fully responsible for their actions or words.
That's as ridiculous as holding the auto dealership responsible for selling you the car you killed somebody in, or suing the manufacture of your swimming pool because somebody drowned in it.

1,500 people are killed a year by knives or some other sharp object. If somebody steals a knife out of your silverware drawer, should you be held responsible if they use your knife to stab somebody do death with it?

We have to start holding people responsible for their own actions. Say a 20 year minimum for using a firearm during a robbery. 20 years minimum for having a stolen gun.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
You are an idiot....someone steals your gun, and uses it illegally and you are the one who has to pay for the damage?
Are you this fucking stupid in real life, or just when you post?
You doofus.
..................................................................................................

Some folks must use what tools they have to deal with the grievances they feel have beset their life. And if "f*cking stupid ", "an idiot", "doofus" are their best tools in the toolbox, well, let's not the rest of us be too judgmental.
Tho yes, it is true with the old adage: "By thy words we shall know thee."
Still let us not judge too harshly. It is the internet you know. Anonymous postings under fake names. No harm, no foul.

So, moving on beyond the demonstrated inarticulateness and limited vocabulary hurdles, let us try to address the poster's grievance.
He states: "you are the one who has to pay for the damage?"

Ummm, nope. My avatar didn't say THAT.

What he said was: The careless gun-owner who allowed his weapon to be stolen bears a responsibility, a liability, for the harm that weapon caused. The actual trigger-puller bears MOST of the responsibility.
But the careless owner is NOT blameless.

After all, if not for his agency in bringing that weapon into society, it would not have caused whatever damage it inflicted.

You buy a gun. You buy the liability that comes with it.
.......................................................................................................................

And then on a more constructive posting, the poster "Dana" offers common sense solution to this increased liability.
To wit:

I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

You idiot...the thief who steals the weapon bears all the responsibility........the actual trigger puller bears all the responsibility.......you guys hate gun owners......why, I don't know or understand. You were born with a missing part of your brain...the part that knows truth, facts and reality...the part that uses reason....it is missing....you are essentially suffering from what I call "Reality Dyslexia."

For you...wrong is right, truth is false, facts are fiction........you can't help yourselves, I just wish you would leave the normal people alone.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,335
Reaction score
26,907
Points
2,250
I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

A lot of death and destruction has been caused by weapons in the hands of the wrong person. We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

If you don't have that insurance, you go to prison and are never allowed to legally own a weapon again.

Everyone should be fully responsible for their actions or words.
That's as ridiculous as holding the auto dealership responsible for selling you the car you killed somebody in, or suing the manufacture of your swimming pool because somebody drowned in it.

1,500 people are killed a year by knives or some other sharp object. If somebody steals a knife out of your silverware drawer, should you be held responsible if they use your knife to stab somebody do death with it?

We have to start holding people responsible for their own actions. Say a 20 year minimum for using a firearm during a robbery. 20 years minimum for having a stolen gun.

Here is my actual solution.....to end 95% or more of the gun violence in the country...

This is rational....and actually targets and punishes criminals....which is how actual crime is stopped....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
70,627
Reaction score
18,407
Points
2,290
I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

A lot of death and destruction has been caused by weapons in the hands of the wrong person. We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

If you don't have that insurance, you go to prison and are never allowed to legally own a weapon again.

Everyone should be fully responsible for their actions or words.
That's as ridiculous as holding the auto dealership responsible for selling you the car you killed somebody in, or suing the manufacture of your swimming pool because somebody drowned in it.

1,500 people are killed a year by knives or some other sharp object. If somebody steals a knife out of your silverware drawer, should you be held responsible if they use your knife to stab somebody do death with it?

We have to start holding people responsible for their own actions. Say a 20 year minimum for using a firearm during a robbery. 20 years minimum for having a stolen gun.

Here is my actual solution.....to end 95% or more of the gun violence in the country...

This is rational....and actually targets and punishes criminals....which is how actual crime is stopped....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
In the perfect world that might work, but we can't live in a perfect world with liberals. So let me tell you how some of your ideas would play out:

First off is they would complain that people are spending more time in prison for having an illegal firearm than they do for murder, which would be true. Then the complaint about overcrowded prisons would eventually come up. The case might be fought up to some liberal court where a judge would rule that being locked away for nearly life simply for being in the possession of an illegal firearm is cruel and unusual punishment, therefore unconstitutional.

Look at how they categorize people who push drugs that kill their users. The left refers to those actions as victimless crimes. There is no way they'd go along with the concept of 30 years for a victimless crime unless that weapon was used in a crime.
 

Chillicothe

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
816
Reaction score
436
Points
883
1,500 people are killed a year by knives or some other sharp object. If somebody steals a knife out of your silverware drawer, should you be held responsible if they use your knife to stab somebody do death with it?
Golly, this is like Whack-A-Mole.
One more time, all together now:
  • Knives ain't guns
  • Automobiles ain't guns.
  • Swimming pools ain't guns.
  • One doesn't cut carrots with a Glock.
Guns are a tool of society that holds it' own specialized category. Like poison does. Like explosives do.

As such, whoever brings that tool into our society inherits or is levied with a greater responsibility than the moke who buys a hammer or a paring knife.

The gun owner, and I am one and have been for many years, must accept that his 'tool' is uniquely dangerous. Particularly so when in the hands of an individual who has ill-intentions, or even no intention at all, but is unknowing, e.g. a child.

The gun carries with it, by it's nature, a potential for damage, injury, and lethality. Far more than society's other useful tools. Poisons and explosives, duly noted.

The individual who becomes the agency of it's introduction to society .....the buyer, or owner of record.....must acknowledge the potential for harm. And be willing to accept the responsibility and liability if that specialized tool does harm.

If you own it.
You own it.
It's benefits. It's liabilities.
Get a specialized insurance policy if you don't want to bear that liability solely.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top