How many democrats own guns?

[Conservative65]

How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?

How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?

because the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)

Nope...that is not the same thing......you need a permit to march because you want to use a communal, public space....and that means you have to save a time and date, where others may be trying to do the same thing, and since it is a public space you need to have the government secure the space.....

Carrying a gun requires none of that...nice try though...

I agree. A permit to march is like renting a place for a wedding reception. You don't want two people/groups renting the space at the same time.

no. it isn't. you should probably look at limitations on the 1st and 4th and 5th amendments. the problem is hysterical rightwing shills for the NRA start stamping their feet.

and by your logic (or lack thereof), we shouldn't outlaw murder either because well, it won't deter murderers.

Why don't you post a thread about the 1st,4th, and 5th and we'll discuss them. This is about the 2nd.

Stay on topic.

 

[2aguy]

SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?

How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?

How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?

because the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)

So...would you be fine with mandatory classes before you are allowed to post on the internet.....and getting a special license to post on the internet....after you show that you know all the slander and libel laws....how about a fee to post on the internet...and if you post without the fee, or the class...you will be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed.....

What about a background check before you buy an electronic devise....sex trafficking and child porn destroy lives.....if a convicted sex offender or criminal tries to buy a computer to engage in those activities...shouldn't Best Buy and Frye's be required to check your legal status before they sell you a computer, an Ipad or any other electric means of crime?

Again I'm saying the regulations are the same. Sticks and stones man... Guns kill people, they are dangerous. So do cars and we have classes and licenses and registration and safety standards to drive. It makes sense

But governments do not ban cars to murder their citizens....every single act of mass murder, genocide, and ethinic cleansing around the world, through history has only happened to unarmed populations.....

And they all disarmed their people first...and registering guns would allow that to happen in the future.......

 

[2aguy]

SOME criminals are getting and using guns... Others who can't easily get one do other things... Like use knives, a far less lethal tool. An angry killer with a knife is likely going to cause less damage than an angry criminal with a gun, would you agree with that?

How does registration of guns stop criminals or mass shooters?

How is the registration of a gun not a restriction in excess of those placed on the right to free speech?

because the same thing has to happen with speech especially demonstrations and large scale messaging (tv, movies, news etc)

So...would you be fine with mandatory classes before you are allowed to post on the internet.....and getting a special license to post on the internet....after you show that you know all the slander and libel laws....how about a fee to post on the internet...and if you post without the fee, or the class...you will be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed.....

What about a background check before you buy an electronic devise....sex trafficking and child porn destroy lives.....if a convicted sex offender or criminal tries to buy a computer to engage in those activities...shouldn't Best Buy and Frye's be required to check your legal status before they sell you a computer, an Ipad or any other electric means of crime?

Again I'm saying the regulations are the same. Sticks and stones man... Guns kill people, they are dangerous. So do cars and we have classes and licenses and registration and safety standards to drive. It makes sense

They are not the same.....in any way.........do you support background checks for all computer purchases......?

Do you want a license for anyone using the internet...to be issued by the federal government?

 

[Slade3200]

I actually agree with you on the bg checks, I don't think they serve a significantly impactful purpose and there are better approaches to take. If We are being really honest, registration would be the safest and most effective answer but I know there is no way those fighting the Strawman would ever let that fly

Okay....you just mentioned Registration...please explain how they work, how they will stop criminals and mass shooters ...

And do you realize that actual criminals, are not required to register illegal guns? Because of Haynes v. United States....so the only people who will be forced to register their guns....are people who don't commit crimes with them.....

What is so hard about simply arresting people who break the law with guns.......why is that such a hard concept for you guys.....?

You keep wanting to be Tom Cruise in Minority Report and swing down on a Zip line and arrest people before they commit crime...it didn't work in the movie, it won't work in reality.

There is no objection to arresting people who break gun laws and people who shoot and kill people. There are many people who want to do more and work towards prevention.

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

And guess what... There are less car accidents because we don't let 5 year olds or blind people drive on the freeway. Same concept with gun control

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

Every one of those things can already be done...and in fact is already being done....they arrest the criminal using the gun, they get him to roll over on the supplier, and then if the guy is an actual criminal, they arrest them too....

Keep in mind.....they have registration in all of the countries I have mentioned...and it doesn't stop their criminals....

Do you acknowledge that actual criminals will not have to register their illegal guns? So if you catch a criminal with an unregistered gun, you can't punish him for that crime..right? You can only punish law abiding gun owners who don't register their gun....

And gun registration in Canada.....had been stopped, why....it cost too much money, time and manpower and did nothing to solve crimes.....

More kids are killed in car accidents than are killed with guns.........we don't let 5 year olds buy, own or carry guns......how does that have anything to do with registering a gun....?

The analogy when to the rationale of having a regulatiry system to promote the safety of our citizens.

I don't want to get into a gun registration debate as it isn't something I would support. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level. It doesn't on a fiscal and operational level.

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law. Can you acknowledge that the law prevents SOME criminals (wreckless individuals would would likely inflict harm) from getting a gun?

Gun registration does not make sense on a law enforcement or safety level......

I have used this before...

If I put on a gun and carry it.....as long as I do not break any laws there is no cause to arrest me....and no need to register me.

If I am stopped by police they will run my name anyway for warrants...if they see I have a gun they can run my name and birthday for felonies....they can do that right now without my registering my gun.

If I am a law abiding gun owner and I take my gun and rob a store or commit a murder...they can already arrest me without having to register my gun.

If I am a felon...I cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun...and if I am stopped by police I can already be arrested on the spot for having the gun........

If I have my gun stolen, I can already go and fill out a report with the police and give them my serial numbers...

So no....gun registration is not necessary for safety or law enforcement...

I agree it isn't necessary but it would be effective, you painted around the effective points. It's off topic though so let get back to the Vegas situation.

 

[Slade3200]

what a bunch of BS.

You gun hater

If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measures

What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

You aren't preventing even some........the people who committed 8,124 gun murders in the U.S. in 2014......90% of them were criminals who could not legally own guns.............or carry guns.......so tell us how many crimnals were stopped from getting guns.....

Almost all mass shooters passed at least one background check, the Orlando Shooter passed 3, and the Santa Barbara shooter passed 2....the San Bernadino shooters passed several too...as did the guy who bought them their rifles........

You can't measure people who didn't commit gun crimes because they couldn't get a gun. Stats are useless for this argument

That's exactly what Liberals do when they use (fill in the blank with a country) to say they have laws and their gun violence is down. What you're doing is claiming that it can be measure because people couldn't get guns.

Comparing stats before and after laws are implement is definitely valid to measure cause and effect. That's a different discussion than what we were talking about

 

[Slade3200]

what a bunch of BS.

You gun hater

If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measures

What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

 

[2aguy]

Okay....you just mentioned Registration...please explain how they work, how they will stop criminals and mass shooters ...

And do you realize that actual criminals, are not required to register illegal guns? Because of Haynes v. United States....so the only people who will be forced to register their guns....are people who don't commit crimes with them.....

What is so hard about simply arresting people who break the law with guns.......why is that such a hard concept for you guys.....?

You keep wanting to be Tom Cruise in Minority Report and swing down on a Zip line and arrest people before they commit crime...it didn't work in the movie, it won't work in reality.

There is no objection to arresting people who break gun laws and people who shoot and kill people. There are many people who want to do more and work towards prevention.

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

And guess what... There are less car accidents because we don't let 5 year olds or blind people drive on the freeway. Same concept with gun control

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

Every one of those things can already be done...and in fact is already being done....they arrest the criminal using the gun, they get him to roll over on the supplier, and then if the guy is an actual criminal, they arrest them too....

Keep in mind.....they have registration in all of the countries I have mentioned...and it doesn't stop their criminals....

Do you acknowledge that actual criminals will not have to register their illegal guns? So if you catch a criminal with an unregistered gun, you can't punish him for that crime..right? You can only punish law abiding gun owners who don't register their gun....

And gun registration in Canada.....had been stopped, why....it cost too much money, time and manpower and did nothing to solve crimes.....

More kids are killed in car accidents than are killed with guns.........we don't let 5 year olds buy, own or carry guns......how does that have anything to do with registering a gun....?

The analogy when to the rationale of having a regulatiry system to promote the safety of our citizens.

I don't want to get into a gun registration debate as it isn't something I would support. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level. It doesn't on a fiscal and operational level.

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law. Can you acknowledge that the law prevents SOME criminals (wreckless individuals would would likely inflict harm) from getting a gun?

Gun registration does not make sense on a law enforcement or safety level......

I have used this before...

If I put on a gun and carry it.....as long as I do not break any laws there is no cause to arrest me....and no need to register me.

If I am stopped by police they will run my name anyway for warrants...if they see I have a gun they can run my name and birthday for felonies....they can do that right now without my registering my gun.

If I am a law abiding gun owner and I take my gun and rob a store or commit a murder...they can already arrest me without having to register my gun.

If I am a felon...I cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun...and if I am stopped by police I can already be arrested on the spot for having the gun........

If I have my gun stolen, I can already go and fill out a report with the police and give them my serial numbers...

So no....gun registration is not necessary for safety or law enforcement...

I agree it isn't necessary but it would be effective, you painted around the effective points. It's off topic though so let get back to the Vegas situation.

Refresh Vega...I don't know what you are talking about....

 

[Slade3200]

what a bunch of BS.

You gun hater

If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measures

What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

There are 1,500,000 defensive gun uses each year according to the Department of Justice....

there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014...


So....

1,500,000 v. 8,124

in those 1,500,000 defensive gun uses, lives are saved.......so how many of those 1,500,000 do you want to die to save the one life ?

None, I own guns, I'm all for any other responible law abiding citizen who wants to have a gun to have one

 

[Conservative65]

You gun hater
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

So you're willing to accept 11,207, a reduction of 1, in order to support the laws you support? That's what you're saying.

 

[2aguy]

You gun hater
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

So under our current laws...the gun murder rate is already going down, as more people carry guns..without registration, or universal background checks...so we don't need them right....

Since 2,101 lives saved is bigger than 1...right?

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

2006-- 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

 

[Conservative65]

You gun hater
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

There are 1,500,000 defensive gun uses each year according to the Department of Justice....

there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014...


So....

1,500,000 v. 8,124

in those 1,500,000 defensive gun uses, lives are saved.......so how many of those 1,500,000 do you want to die to save the one life ?

None, I own guns, I'm all for any other responible law abiding citizen who wants to have a gun to have one

On a previous post you indicated, having been provided with a homicide number of 11,208 for 2013, that you would call what you support a success if it reduced the number by ONLY 1.

 

[Flash]

[Q

there are no rights which are not subject to reasonable limitation.

but thanks for playing.

The problem is that the stupid Libtards are never reasonable.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Conservative65]

You gun hater
What about the others it didn't stop and the ones they killed? You OK with that?

I support common sense measures and what you propose isn't since you can't tell me what kind of background check a person stealing a gun will go through. When you can do that, you'll have a valid argument. Are you claiming that if someone that is flagged they won't go about trying to find ways to get one illegally? For what you say to make sense, you'd have to make that argument.

It shouldn't? Anything the left proposes always has unintended consequences.

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

You aren't preventing even some........the people who committed 8,124 gun murders in the U.S. in 2014......90% of them were criminals who could not legally own guns.............or carry guns.......so tell us how many crimnals were stopped from getting guns.....

Almost all mass shooters passed at least one background check, the Orlando Shooter passed 3, and the Santa Barbara shooter passed 2....the San Bernadino shooters passed several too...as did the guy who bought them their rifles........

You can't measure people who didn't commit gun crimes because they couldn't get a gun. Stats are useless for this argument

That's exactly what Liberals do when they use (fill in the blank with a country) to say they have laws and their gun violence is down. What you're doing is claiming that it can be measure because people couldn't get guns.

Comparing stats before and after laws are implement is definitely valid to measure cause and effect. That's a different discussion than what we were talking about

That's what I asked you to do by requesting a threshold (maximum amount before it wouldn't be considered a success) if laws you support are passed. You said if it reduced murders by ONE it would be a success. I provide the 2013 number of homicides (11,208). What you're saying is that if it was reduced to 11,207, it would be successful despite 11,207 still being murdered.

 

[Conservative65]

[Q

there are no rights which are not subject to reasonable limitation.

but thanks for playing.

The problem is that the stupid Libtards are never reasonable.

But thanks for playing.

Ever noticed that those who say "common sense" or "reasonable limitation" are the ones that want to dictate what those two mean?

 

[SmokeALib]

If democrats owned guns, they would all shoot each other dead.

 

[Slade3200]

There is no objection to arresting people who break gun laws and people who shoot and kill people. There are many people who want to do more and work towards prevention.

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

And guess what... There are less car accidents because we don't let 5 year olds or blind people drive on the freeway. Same concept with gun control

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

Every one of those things can already be done...and in fact is already being done....they arrest the criminal using the gun, they get him to roll over on the supplier, and then if the guy is an actual criminal, they arrest them too....

Keep in mind.....they have registration in all of the countries I have mentioned...and it doesn't stop their criminals....

Do you acknowledge that actual criminals will not have to register their illegal guns? So if you catch a criminal with an unregistered gun, you can't punish him for that crime..right? You can only punish law abiding gun owners who don't register their gun....

And gun registration in Canada.....had been stopped, why....it cost too much money, time and manpower and did nothing to solve crimes.....

More kids are killed in car accidents than are killed with guns.........we don't let 5 year olds buy, own or carry guns......how does that have anything to do with registering a gun....?

The analogy when to the rationale of having a regulatiry system to promote the safety of our citizens.

I don't want to get into a gun registration debate as it isn't something I would support. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level. It doesn't on a fiscal and operational level.

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law. Can you acknowledge that the law prevents SOME criminals (wreckless individuals would would likely inflict harm) from getting a gun?

Gun registration does not make sense on a law enforcement or safety level......

I have used this before...

If I put on a gun and carry it.....as long as I do not break any laws there is no cause to arrest me....and no need to register me.

If I am stopped by police they will run my name anyway for warrants...if they see I have a gun they can run my name and birthday for felonies....they can do that right now without my registering my gun.

If I am a law abiding gun owner and I take my gun and rob a store or commit a murder...they can already arrest me without having to register my gun.

If I am a felon...I cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun...and if I am stopped by police I can already be arrested on the spot for having the gun........

If I have my gun stolen, I can already go and fill out a report with the police and give them my serial numbers...

So no....gun registration is not necessary for safety or law enforcement...

I agree it isn't necessary but it would be effective, you painted around the effective points. It's off topic though so let get back to the Vegas situation.

Refresh Vega...I don't know what you are talking about....

\

Vegas refresh...

I'll give you one simple example. A young man was arrested for trying to murder Trump at one of his rallies in Vegas a few weeks ago. The kid flew to Vegas, took some shots at a gun range, went to the rally and tried to steal a gun from a guard at the rally where he was then arrested. I trust you are familiar with the incident?

Now take away gun control and play out the scenario... The kid goes to a gun store and buys a gun, kid is allowed to carry the gun to the rally (a point trump and gun advocates make would have saved lives in Paris and Orlando if people were carrying)... You have any doubt that trump would be dead right now without the restrictions that took the gun out of this kids hand at this event?

 

[Slade3200]

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

So you're willing to accept 11,207, a reduction of 1, in order to support the laws you support? That's what you're saying.

Stop with the stupid trap/baiting questions... I know what you are doing. I'm done playing hypotheticals with you. If you have a specific law that you want to ask me about then ask about it

 

[Slade3200]

I already answered your stupid criminal background check question... Twice! Your point holds no weight. Crimes will happen no matter what laws are in place. That's not the point. The point is what can we do to prevent future harm. Not ALL, but some

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

So under our current laws...the gun murder rate is already going down, as more people carry guns..without registration, or universal background checks...so we don't need them right....

Since 2,101 lives saved is bigger than 1...right?

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

2006-- 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

All factors would need to be considered. what do you attribute to the decrease?

 

[JoeNormal]

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

The polls on universal background checks are useless...the people responding are uninformed on what universal background checks are for, and why the anti gunners are pushing them so hard.....,

lol, a typical RW denialist.

So....tell me...what does a universal background check do that will stop a criminal from getting a gun? What will they do that stops a mass shooter from getting a gun? How will universal background checks work without gun registration? Will handing you gun to your friend on the range now be a felony if you don't get a background check on the transfer of that gun?

Can you friends or relatives take your guns into their home and keep them while you are on vacation, and return them when you get back without two background checks on the transfers?

So liars polling the uninformed show nothing real about the issue.

I've asked Slade what type of background check was going to be done on the person that stole one of my guns. He's yet to provide an answer. He seems to not understand that the only ones affected by what he supports aren't the ones we need to worry about and those that are won't be subjected to those laws no matter how many are passed. Criminals don't care about what the law says or how many laws say it. That's why they're criminals.

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

 

[Flash]

[. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level.

How?

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law.

Good. Now explain to us how imposing strict gun control regulation on law abiding citizens will ever change that.