It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[SaxxyBlues]

I think you guys with a hard stance about having a constitutional right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons should be more flexible. If you could bend a little and work with the idea that mass shootings are happening at a huge rate, and we need new tools to control it and require gun owners to register their weapons. You can hide behind the 2nd Amendment all you want, it will take exceptional American's to man up and tackle this problem head on. I have no faith, I know the NRA wants no restriction on ownership. I guess they feel murder is a part of everyday life.

 

[2aguy]

I think you guys with a hard stance about having a constitutional right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons should be more flexible. If you could bend a little and work with the idea that mass shootings are happening at a huge rate, and we need new tools to control it and require gun owners to register their weapons. You can hide behind the 2nd Amendment all you want, it will take exceptional American's to man up and tackle this problem head on. I have no faith, I know the NRA wants no restriction on ownership. I guess they feel murder is a part of everyday life.

How is 12 mass public shootings with a total of 93 killed...considering ladders kill over 300 people a year, a huge rate? In a country of over 320 million people with over 600 million guns in private hands?

Knives kill over 1,500 people every single year...

Cars over 38,000

Lawn mowers kill over 75 people every single year....

You don't know what you are talking about.....you troll.

 

[Ropey]

Come on.

Correlation does not equal causation and in this case it is rather clear...

...that the increase in guns causing more gun deaths can be seen in exactly the same percentage as an increase in digital cameras causing more child pornography.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

I think you guys with a hard stance about having a constitutional right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons should be more flexible. If you could bend a little and work with the idea that mass shootings are happening at a huge rate, and we need new tools to control it and require gun owners to register their weapons. You can hide behind the 2nd Amendment all you want, it will take exceptional American's to man up and tackle this problem head on. I have no faith, I know the NRA wants no restriction on ownership. I guess they feel murder is a part of everyday life.

How is 12 mass public shootings with a total of 93 killed...considering ladders kill over 300 people a year, a huge rate? In a country of over 320 million people with over 600 million guns in private hands?

Knives kill over 1,500 people every single year...

Cars over 38,000

Lawn mowers kill over 75 people every single year....

You don't know what you are talking about.....you troll.

 

[2aguy]

Come on.

Correlation does not equal causation and in this case it is rather clear...

...that the increase in guns causing more gun deaths can be seen in exactly the same percentage as an increase in digital cameras causing more child pornography.

Except.....guns didn't even do that....

There isn't even that basic correlation.......they don't even have that....

Over the last 26 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- 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.
-----

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

So you should relegate mass shooting to the level of ladder accidents. Mass shootings are nothing to write home about and we shouldn't pay attention to them. Please know the ladder killed them not the force of another human being. I for one know there is a person out there fixing to go off. And you expect America to stand by and do nothing.

 

[2aguy]

So you should relegate mass shooting to the level of ladder accidents. Mass shootings are nothing to write home about and we shouldn't pay attention to them. Please know the ladder killed them not the force of another human being. I for one know there is a person out there fixing to go off. And you expect America to stand by and do nothing.

No, dipshit.....you stop mass public shootings differently from other gun crime because they are different from other gun crime..... and nothing you offer is actually meant to deal with mass public shootings, you are simply exploiting mass public shootings to push gun grabbing, you left wing hack....

 

[SaxxyBlues]

You relegate accidents to what is happening with these mass murders. They're not the same thing. Seems you have a distorted view.

 

[2aguy]

You relegate accidents to what is happening with these mass murders. They're not the same thing. Seems you have a distorted view.

And it is true you are a troll......

When ladders kill almost as many people as mass public shooters it shows that mass shootings are the rarest of crime......and you focus on it not because you care about the victims, but because walking through the pools of blood is the best tool you have to stampede uninformed Americans into giving you more power....

 

[Ropey]

Come on.

Correlation does not equal causation and in this case it is rather clear...

...that the increase in guns causing more gun deaths can be seen in exactly the same percentage as an increase in digital cameras causing more child pornography.

Except.....guns didn't even do that....

There isn't even that basic correlation.......they don't even have that....

Over the last 26 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- 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.
-----

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

So, you don't sarcasm to the left well. That's ok. You likely vote conservative all the way. The left doesn't logic well and so sarcasm gets through to them where logic fails everything but kneejerk responses.

There isn't even that basic correlation.

I said there was no correlation.

 

[edward37]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Plan for confiscation, sure.
But that's why we have the 2A

NO AR 15's ,,,NO AK 47's

 

[SaxxyBlues]

So you should relegate mass shooting to the level of ladder accidents. Mass shootings are nothing to write home about and we shouldn't pay attention to them. Please know the ladder killed them not the force of another human being. I for one know there is a person out there fixing to go off. And you expect America to stand by and do nothing.

No, dipshit.....you stop mass public shootings differently from other gun crime because they are different from other gun crime..... and nothing you offer is actually meant to deal with mass public shootings, you are simply exploiting mass public shootings to push gun grabbing, you left wing hack....

Other gun crime? No one made comparison that way. You were comparing mass murders to ladders and the like.

 

[2aguy]

So you should relegate mass shooting to the level of ladder accidents. Mass shootings are nothing to write home about and we shouldn't pay attention to them. Please know the ladder killed them not the force of another human being. I for one know there is a person out there fixing to go off. And you expect America to stand by and do nothing.

No, dipshit.....you stop mass public shootings differently from other gun crime because they are different from other gun crime..... and nothing you offer is actually meant to deal with mass public shootings, you are simply exploiting mass public shootings to push gun grabbing, you left wing hack....

Other gun crime? No one made comparison that way. You were comparing mass murders to ladders and the like.

Yep....when ladders kill almost as many people.....mass public shootings are shown to be the rarest of rare crimes in this country, and the only reason you asshats play them up is to stampede uninformed people into giving you more power....

Knives kill more people than mass public shooters.....over 1,500 people each year....

pools kill more people every single year than mass shooters do...do you want to ban pools?

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Plan for confiscation, sure.
But that's why we have the 2A

NO AR 15's ,,,NO AK 47's

Those guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....specifically by Scalia, the author of the opinion in Heller v D.C.......

 

[SaxxyBlues]

So you should relegate mass shooting to the level of ladder accidents. Mass shootings are nothing to write home about and we shouldn't pay attention to them. Please know the ladder killed them not the force of another human being. I for one know there is a person out there fixing to go off. And you expect America to stand by and do nothing.

No, dipshit.....you stop mass public shootings differently from other gun crime because they are different from other gun crime..... and nothing you offer is actually meant to deal with mass public shootings, you are simply exploiting mass public shootings to push gun grabbing, you left wing hack....

Other gun crime? No one made comparison that way. You were comparing mass murders to ladders and the like.

Yep....when ladders kill almost as many people.....mass public shootings are shown to be the rarest of rare crimes in this country, and the only reason you asshats play them up is to stampede uninformed people into giving you more power....

Knives kill more people than mass public shooters.....over 1,500 people each year....

pools kill more people every single year than mass shooters do...do you want to ban pools?

Republicans with their sanctity of life fight over abortion. This is how much they actually care. Oh well another day another mass murder. No biggy.

 

[Flopper]

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars.

But a law that mandated expensive additions to guns would make them unaffordable to some buyers and violae the their right to buy a gun. The government is clearly forbidden by the second amendment from preventing an American citizen from acquiring a gun, so if the government believes these additions are important, the government should pay for them. If you are only concerned with safety and not just harassing gun owners, that should be ok with you.

Affordable is very subjective. For some people paying $50 is not affordable for other $3000 would be affordable. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment gives you you the right to bear arms, not the right to buy affordable arms. Whether you have to work a day or month to earn enough money to buy a gun is irrelevant.

If the government placed a tax on the sale of guns clearly for the purpose of infringing on 2nd amendment rights, the courts would surely rule it to be violation of the 2nd amendment. However, it government caused gun prices to go up due to safety requirement which save lives, the courts would probably rule the the purpose of the action was not prevent gun ownership but to make them safer. It would really depend on the purpose.

 

[edward37]

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars.

But a law that mandated expensive additions to guns would make them unaffordable to some buyers and violae the their right to buy a gun. The government is clearly forbidden by the second amendment from preventing an American citizen from acquiring a gun, so if the government believes these additions are important, the government should pay for them. If you are only concerned with safety and not just harassing gun owners, that should be ok with you.

Affordable is very subjective. For some people paying $50 is not affordable for other $3000 would be affordable. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It gives you the right to bear arms, not the right to buy affordable arms.

Let em all buy muskets

 

[Flopper]

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

WRONG
Switzerland has a gun ownership rate and weapons ownership comparable to the US per capita.
But they have almost no mass shootings.

WHY?

THEY LACK LEFTIST POLICIES. THE REAL PROBLEM IS INSANE LEFTISTS.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO RESOLVE YOUR PERCEIVED GUN PROBLEM IN AMERICA, YOU WOULD TOMORROW RENOUNCE LEFTIST POLICIES. ANYTHING LESS IS A DISPLAY OF YOUR ABJECT IGNORANCE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE

There is a vast difference between the Swiss and American culture particularly in regard to firearms. Switzerland has very different regulations, practices, and policies related to guns than America. Although they are liberal compared many European countries, they are more restrictive than in American.

First of all there is no constitutional guarantee to bear arms. In Switzerland gun ownership is not a right.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable of handling a weapon. This usually comes as part of military service which is mandatory. Much of the high ownership of guns is due to the requirement that all military officers and optionally enlisted men maintain their weapon after discharge since they are subject to recall in an emergency.

In contrast to the US, a license is required for most gun purchases which is acquired through the local police. Prior to granting a license, a background check is done. If the police feel there may be mental problems, they can ask for a certification from a psychiatrist.

The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned as well as assault style weapons and various accessories such as silencers and high capacity weapons. All gun purchases must go through a local dealer. Age varies a bit depending on type of weapon and purpose but generally it is 21. A stolen firearm not reported to police and used in a crime can result in criminal charges.

There are a lots of guns in Switzerland but there are far more regulations than in the US and they are national. However, the biggest difference between Americans and the Swiss in regard to firearms is the lack of a culture of violence in Switzerland. There hasn't been a riot in Switzerland in over 50 years and they haven't been involved in a war in over 200 years. Most people that own guns in Switzerland are either required to do to military service, hunt, or participate in shooting sports. Owning guns for personal protection is not common.

 

[2aguy]

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars.

But a law that mandated expensive additions to guns would make them unaffordable to some buyers and violae the their right to buy a gun. The government is clearly forbidden by the second amendment from preventing an American citizen from acquiring a gun, so if the government believes these additions are important, the government should pay for them. If you are only concerned with safety and not just harassing gun owners, that should be ok with you.

Affordable is very subjective. For some people paying $50 is not affordable for other $3000 would be affordable. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment gives you you the right to bear arms, not the right to buy affordable arms. Whether you have to work a day or month to earn enough money to buy a gun is irrelevant.

If the government placed a tax on the sale of guns clearly for the purpose of infringing on 2nd amendment rights, the courts would surely rule it to be violation of the 2nd amendment. However, it government caused gun prices to go up due to safety requirement which save lives, the courts would probably rule the the purpose of the action was not prevent gun ownership but to make them safer. It would really depend on the purpose.

The democrats put a tax on voting.....to keep their former Black slaves from voting....that was determined to be unConstitutional under the 14th Amendment....also, the Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v Pennsylvania, that you cannot be charged or taxed for the exercise of a Right....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights.

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...

 

[2aguy]

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

WRONG
Switzerland has a gun ownership rate and weapons ownership comparable to the US per capita.
But they have almost no mass shootings.

WHY?

THEY LACK LEFTIST POLICIES. THE REAL PROBLEM IS INSANE LEFTISTS.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO RESOLVE YOUR PERCEIVED GUN PROBLEM IN AMERICA, YOU WOULD TOMORROW RENOUNCE LEFTIST POLICIES. ANYTHING LESS IS A DISPLAY OF YOUR ABJECT IGNORANCE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE

There is a vast difference between the Swiss and American culture particularly in regard to firearms. Switzerland has very different regulations, practices, and policies related to guns than America. Although they are liberal compared many European countries, they are more restrictive than in American.

First of all there is no constitutional guarantee to bear arms. In Switzerland gun ownership is not a right.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable of handling a weapon. This usually comes as part of military service which is mandatory. Much of the high ownership of guns is due to the requirement that all military officers and optionally enlisted men maintain their weapon after discharge since they are subject to recall in an emergency.

In contrast to the US, a license is required for most gun purchases which is acquired through the local police. Prior to granting a license, a background check is done. If the police feel there may be mental problems, they can ask for a certification from a psychiatrist.

The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned as well as assault style weapons and various accessories such as silencers and high capacity weapons. All gun purchases must go through a local dealer. Age varies a bit depending on type of weapon and purpose but generally it is 21. A stolen firearm not reported to police and used in a crime can result in criminal charges.

There are a lots of guns in Switzerland but there are far more regulations than in the US and they are national. However, the biggest difference between Americans and the Swiss in regard to firearms is the lack of a culture of violence in Switzerland. There hasn't been a riot in Switzerland in over 50 years and they haven't been involved in a war in over 200 years. Most people that own guns in Switzerland are either required to do to military service, hunt, or participate in shooting sports. Owning guns for personal protection is not common.

And none of those regulations would keep someone from taking their military weapon, or stealing the military weapon of a neighbor and walking into a school and murdering children.....

The Pulse Nightclub shooter went through a complete background check for his job in security. He was then accused by a co-worker of possibly being a terrorist......the FBI launched a complete investigation into him.....3 interviews with trained FBI interrogators, a complete background check and history work up, and even an under cover approach by an agent......he also had a background check for each gun he purchased......

After passing each......he went to the Pulse Nightclub and murdered people...

Licensing guns is pointless......registering guns does nothing.....

You don't know what you are talking about.....