Guns are to blame--not people.

What about all these filthy ass racist rednecks.


Far outnumbered by the violent blm, antifa racists of the democrat party, who burned, looted and killed for 7 months, and threatened more and more violence if Trump won...they murdered over 40 people......

blm and antifa burned, looted and murdered in primarily black and minority neighborhoods......yet you guys didn't care about that violent racism...
 
Yes, that way he would have killed himself by starting the car with the garage door closed. A lot accomplished there, huh?



Who knows, but he shot at her while he was in the living room while she was screaming outside. The bullet landed in her car door and the officers had evidence and witnesses. Apples and oranges.



Yes it does otherwise we'd have 5 million people.

Stop and frisk worked greatly. Three strikes worked out well. Did they stop everybody? No they didn't, but at least there was a reduction in violent crime.

5 years minimum for illegally carrying a firearm would stop them from carrying guns. 10 years minimum if it was stolen. The less demand, the less the supply meaning that gun theft would not be such a huge market as it is today if nobody wanted to buy the guns. 20 years minimum if you use a gun in the commission of a crime like robbery. Death penalty if you use a firearm to illegally kill somebody.


I think those numbers should be bumped...

30 years if a felon is caught in possession of a gun when they are legally prohibited from buying, owning or carrying a gun...

Life in prison for any crime by a criminal with a gun....

That is how Japan has stopped the Yakuza from using guns.....and they used to use guns and grenades all the time.....a life sentence for using a gun for a crime either gets the criminals to stop using guns, or simply takes them out of society altogether...
 
1642963442653.png
 
I think those numbers should be bumped...

30 years if a felon is caught in possession of a gun when they are legally prohibited from buying, owning or carrying a gun...

Life in prison for any crime by a criminal with a gun....

That is how Japan has stopped the Yakuza from using guns.....and they used to use guns and grenades all the time.....a life sentence for using a gun for a crime either gets the criminals to stop using guns, or simply takes them out of society altogether...

You have my vote on that. Joe gets upset because people like us carry guns for protection. But if we had strong enough deterrents where the criminals wouldn't dream of committing a crime against us with a gun, there would be no need for us to carry.

If jail space is a problem, let's build more prisons. Using money for that instead of making things greener would be a much better use of resources and save thousands of innocent lives in the process.
 
Far outnumbered by the violent blm, antifa racists of the democrat party, who burned, looted and killed for 7 months, and threatened more and more violence if Trump won...they murdered over 40 people......

blm and antifa burned, looted and murdered in primarily black and minority neighborhoods......yet you guys didn't care about that violent racism...
How many murders has no one been arrested for?
 
I'm more for practicality. How many spouses have been shot because SOMEONE should have taken a gun away.

My next door neighbor at my old place shot himself. A couple of weeks before, he fired his gun through his patio window and then lied to the cops about it. The cops didn't take his gun and a few weeks later he offed himself. (Oh, incidentally, NOBODY in the building heard the shot, it was only discovered when his wife came home and found him.)



Gee, you seem to want to put a lot of qualifications to get to the point you are making. Why not "People who were shot on Days begining with T. "
IOW, you don't have a source, you're just making it up hoping no one will call you on it. Got it. Hey, I'm working with what you actually write, so the qualifications come from you. Did you think I would really just accept a bunch of emotional blargle from you when you make such statements?
 
Last edited:
Throwing a sick man in jail would have been inhumane.
Taking away a method for him to kill himself would have been humane. And sensible.



Well, jeez, he must have not been trying that hard, given they were in a small room at close range. On a serious note, they took his gun, I hope.



We lock up 2 million people.
We lock up 2 million people
We lock up 2 million people

Locking people up doesn't work.
I take from that you do not support assisted suicide laws.
 
92% of all women killed with guns in high-income countries in 2015 were from the US.

In 2015:
800-1000 women are killed with guns.
220 are killed with knives
300 are killed with other

Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that the abusive partner will kill his female victim.

4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

I'm reminded of a a political advertisement that I saw, long ago, intended to promote the position of hoplophobic pussies such as yourself—supporting some gun proposal that was in the works at the time.

It depicts a woman who has fled an abusive relationship, but now her abusive former husband/boyfriend/whatever is banging on her door, trying to break in and yelling threats.

We're intended to believe that the proposal under consideration is necessary in order to insure that the abuser now trying to break into this woman's home doesn't have a gun.

It seems to me that this advertisement did an astounding job of missing its very own point.

In general, men are bigger and stronger and better at the use of violence, than women. If the man in this advertisement had managed to break through the door, then he would not have needed a weapon to inflict further harm on the woman.

The proposal intended to insure that he wouldn't have a gun (as if criminals would obey any such law anyway) would also insure that she didn't have a gun, and if she did have a gun, in the situation described in this advertisement, she would have been easily able to defend herself.


If your daughter is in an abusive relationship, and there's a gun in the house, tell her to gtfo.

One again, an important point is being missed.

If a woman is in an abusive relationshit, with a man who is so abusive that there is a credible risk that he might try to kill her or otherwise inflict serious harm on her, then she needs to GTFO, regardless of any weapons that the man may or may not have. It's not the gun that is a threat to her life or safety; it is the abusive asshole who is the threat.
 
Uh, guy, if we all have to live with metal detectors, militarized police, active shooter drills, security doors at our workplaces, then we are nowhere near liberty. We are being held hostage to a gun culture that refuses to clean up their act.

You misspelled “criminal”.

No surprise, given that you are one of the most open supporters on this forum of the criminal culture and its predations against human beings. And a supporter of policies that have no other intent or effect than to make human beings easier prey for criminals.

As always, you take the side of your own kind against the side of human beings.
 
Constitutional rights should not be removed from people on a hunch they might do something wrong with them. We are losing our long standing ground of innocent until proven guilty.
1) The Second Amendment is about Militias, not guns.
2) Yes, you absolutely should take away people's guns if they are dangerous.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

You have have consistently demonstrated a strong eagerness to promote violent crime, and to deprive human beings of our most basic Constitutional rights.

You've repeatedly, consistently expressed utter contempt for our Constitution, for the principals on which it is based, and for the rule of law as established thereunder.

By your very own logic, we, as a society, would be fully justified in stripping you of several important freedoms, on the basis that you've shown a strong desire to use these freedoms to violate the rights of human beings. Starting, definitely, with freedom of speech, and voting rights.
 
I'm sure you don't. But honestly, you made it sound minor at first, and then admitted the violence was escalating... Sounds like a good reason to get the guns out of that house.



Right, because a piece of paper is going to protect you from a lunatic with a gun. Oh, wait. No.
No, it sounds like getting the person escalating the violence out of the house would be a good idea. It's often the wife or girlfriend doing the escalating. My wife had that pattern, we went to counseling and the counselor told her that when I asked her to back off and stop arguing, she should do so. Once that happened, we almost never had a serious disagreement, let alone a fight. In fact, I think it's been over a decade since our last fight.
 
Really? Have you a credible source showing that over half (that's most) of gun murders (your word. That means not suicides, not accidental deaths, etc.) are committed by people who have owned the gun they used for, let's say, at least 10 years? If not, you're just making it all up and no one believes you.

One of CrimIncel Joe's favorite lies is a statistic about the likelihood of a gun in the home being used against a member of that household, which was from a study conducted by a fraud who counted as “a gun in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals intending to use them against the rightful occupants of that home. CrimIncel Joe is fully aware of the fraudulent nature of this claim, and yet is persists in repeating it. I haven't read through this whole thread, yet, but I'll be surprised if before I finish doing so, I don't find that it's already repeated this lie, knowing full well that it is a lie.
 
I'm more for practicality. How many spouses have been shot because SOMEONE should have taken a gun away.

My next door neighbor at my old place shot himself. A couple of weeks before, he fired his gun through his patio window and then lied to the cops about it. The cops didn't take his gun and a few weeks later he offed himself. (Oh, incidentally, NOBODY in the building heard the shot, it was only discovered when his wife came home and found him.)



Gee, you seem to want to put a lot of qualifications to get to the point you are making. Why not "People who were shot on Days begining with T. "
So? Why is his suicide any of YOUR business? If he wanted to kill himself there are many ways to do so without using a gun.
 
That would have been difficult, as we had electric stoves in that complex.

We should take guns away from people who are a danger to themselves or others.... that's actually pretty sensible.
Who decides that they are a danger? If they are a danger, they should be institutionalized, not have their guns taken away. Why do you always focus on the tool rather than the user?
 
Throwing a sick man in jail would have been inhumane.
Taking away a method for him to kill himself would have been humane. And sensible.



Well, jeez, he must have not been trying that hard, given they were in a small room at close range. On a serious note, they took his gun, I hope.



We lock up 2 million people.
We lock up 2 million people
We lock up 2 million people

Locking people up doesn't work.
You're really something. You'd condemn a dying man to a torturous death by denying him the tool for a clean suicide? I've seen people go through Chemo, my wife had to for Colon Cancer. As the doctor told us, the Chemo kills the cancer slightly faster than it kills you IF it works. In my wife's case it didn't work, but they removed her colon so she's still with me. I wouldn't condemn anyone for choosing a clean, quick death over dying slowly and painfully of cancer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top