What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Maybe I'm Wrong About Guns"

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
91,324
Reaction score
30,823
Points
2,250
My goodness you are one prolific little copy and pasting Querdenken.

Riddle me this...

Who manufactures guns for criminals?

What is the name of the company that manufactures the guns that criminals use.
Obviously the guns must be coming direct from some manufacturer because Law Abiding gun owners would NEVER EVER EVER let their weapons be used for criminal purposes.

Or am I wrong?


Morons.....idiots who can pass any background check and are too stupid to not do it, sell guns to criminals...or, in the case of baby mommas, mothers and grand mothers of gang bangers, they are either paid to buy the guns, or they are threatened with violence to buy the guns...

Or they steal the guns....the L.A. gangs have dedicated robbery crews who just steal guns....

A little basic research into this topic would go a long way to make you not look like an idiot..
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
22,826
Reaction score
6,016
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Expand your knowledge sonny.
Suicide in many places in the world is considered and honorable end. A preferred end to long suffering.
They don't fear death the way Americans do.

So, yes, taking away guns will make suicides more difficult to achieve and, therefore, save lives.

It's obvious.
biden-malarkey-S.jpg


Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
91,324
Reaction score
30,823
Points
2,250
Really my Tiny Minded Querdenken?
What is the federal law requiring gun registration?


States have had them and they failed...Canada tried to register just 5 million long guns....not 600 million guns....and that failed...you doofus........

Besides being unConstitutional and unnecessary...and stupid.....registration doesn't work at stopping crime...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”


When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
91,324
Reaction score
30,823
Points
2,250
There he goes copying and pasting as if he made sense.

That, my Tiny Minded Querdenken is why we enhance the laws.

God, you are stupid even among the Querdenken


Do your parents know you are on the computer, unsupervised, again? They are going to ground you again...you little idiot.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
22,826
Reaction score
6,016
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
GEEZ.
What an effin Tiny Brained Querdenken!

Your point is unknown to anyone with fewer that 8 pounds of crap between their ears.

BUT
How many mass murders are committed
by ladders?
by Deer?
by Lawn Mowers?

Do lawn mowers and ladders have other purposes?

What, other than killing is the purpose of any firearm?
AND
If it has no other purpose it should be heavily regulated or eliminated.
Why and how can you demand that we as citizens of America, surrender our right to defend ourselves? What gives you that right? If you don't want any guns in your house, fine. Here's a sign you can print up for your front door.

i-KqJNKC6-Th.jpg


Thank God we live in America and we have the US Constitution.

i-Lqv3tcP-S.jpg
 
Last edited:

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
17,547
Reaction score
12,296
Points
2,405
Location
Everywhere needed
In the U.S. we have 330 million people.

In 2019 there were 12 mass public shootings....12 individuals out of 330 million.

They killed a total of 73 people.

Each year deer kill 200 people.

Ladders kill 300 people.

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.

Cars killed over 39,000 people.

Yet somehow we are to believe that with 600 million guns in private hands, and over 19.4 million Americans who can legally carry guns in public for self defense...that we must ban these guns because of mass public shootings.......

This is why we don't trust gun grabbers.....

Well, that was a slam dunk if I ever read one
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
17,547
Reaction score
12,296
Points
2,405
Location
Everywhere needed
Why and how can you demand that we as citizens of America, surrender our right to defend ourselves? What gives you that right? If you don't want any guns in your house, fine. Here's a sign you can print up for your front door.

Thank God we live in America and we have the US Constitution.

Ask me which of those two continues to give me any comfort.........
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
22,826
Reaction score
6,016
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
My goodness you are one prolific little copy and pasting Querdenken.

Riddle me this...

Who manufactures guns for criminals?

What is the name of the company that manufactures the guns that criminals use.
Obviously the guns must be coming direct from some manufacturer because Law Abiding gun owners would NEVER EVER EVER let their weapons be used for criminal purposes.

Or am I wrong?
You're wrong but that is typical of someone who demands to remain ignorant about any subject.

U.S.

New Report on Where Criminals Get Their Guns

By ROBERT VERBRUGGEN
January 10, 2019 12:19 PM

Among prisoners serving time for a crime during which they possessed a gun, about half got their weapons either on the underground market (43 percent) or through theft (6 percent). Meanwhile, 10 percent bought guns from a retail source, including 0.8 percent who bought them at gun shows.

Another 11 percent of the time, someone else bought the gun for them, either as a gift or as a straw purchase (situations I wish the survey separated). Roughly 15 percent got guns from family and friends (buying, renting, trading, borrowing). And 12 percent of the time, the guns were either brought to the crime by someone else or found at the scene.

An obvious policy implication is that it would be very difficult to regulate most of these transactions — the underground market is by definition unregulated; people in criminal social networks are not going to follow gun laws; theft is already illegal; licensed dealers already conduct background checks. A fair counterargument, though, is that most guns begin life with a legal sale from a dealer, so there may be ways to stop guns from entering the illegal market to begin with.

 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
17,547
Reaction score
12,296
Points
2,405
Location
Everywhere needed
If you think your government reams you now........

When they succeed in taking your guns away, you'll wish for the old gentler reaming days
 

Cellblock2429

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
24,932
Reaction score
6,815
Points
290
Location
New York
Expand your knowledge sonny.
Suicide in many places in the world is considered and honorable end. A preferred end to long suffering.
They don't fear death the way Americans do.

So, yes, taking away guns will make suicides more difficult to achieve and, therefore, save lives.

It's obvious.
/——-/ Taking away your car will stop drunk driving, too.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
27,169
Reaction score
3,433
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Not an answer to the questions, any of them.
Your questions do not address the issue put to you....
Which you have not addressed .
Because you know to do so is to admit the inanity of your position.
Could it be that you know your claim that guns are heavily regulated is just another of your lies?
If abortions where regulated in the same or similar manner as guns, people such as youw ould scream loud enough to be heard on the moon.
Thus, your statement is demonstrated a lie.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
29,210
Reaction score
7,176
Points
280
You can't explain how background checks or purchase limits do any of that....just saying they will doesn't mean anything...you asshats have been shown over and over again that background checks are ignored by criminals, they use straw buyers who can pass any background check or steal the guns....and that also gets around any limit on purchases..

Are you this mentally deficient in real life or just when you post.
This is why the democrat's are attacking the whole thing, otherwise they don't want to attack the specific problem that involves specific individuals, so they attempt to punish everyone. This is why Democrat's are communist or have Communist ways when it comes to using government to crush their supposed targets, otherwise without selecting the individuals that are the problem's, and so therefore they punish the whole even if it means denying the freedom's of the individuals that don't engage in such things. If this nation doesn't learn this fast, and the demoncrats remain in power somehow, then we as a free people will exist no more.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
29,210
Reaction score
7,176
Points
280
If you think your government reams you now........

When they succeed in taking your guns away, you'll wish for the old gentler reaming days
Especially if the government has become seriously corrupt, and it seems that it is heading that way fast.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
27,169
Reaction score
3,433
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1,535
Points
178
Moron...what is it with you and stupidity...were you born stupid, or did you practice to get more stupid...

It doesn't matter why they commit suicide...you doofus........they have limited access to guns...that is the issue, and they still commit suicide at higher rates than we do...as do 20 other countries........
Sure it matters my Tiny Brained Querdeken.
In Japan, for example, suicide is often an honorable right performed to preserve honor or family status.
In the US, on the other hand, you people fear death DESPITE your claimed belief that death will lead to your "heaven."
YOU will desperately try to delay the unavoidable by any means possible and at any expense.

What, for example, is the suicide rate in the US WITHOUT guns?
1632619751936.png


Well look at that, guns outnumber all other methods when committing suicide.
Eliminate the guns and how many of those suicides fail?
Let's see if we can figure it out.

1632620023840.png

Look at that, guns succeed 82.5% of the time while cutting one's writes only succeeds 1.2% of the time.
Logic dictates that eliminating guns will reduce the number of suicides significantly BECAUSE no matter how the attempts are made, failure rates will increase, failures will increase and fewer people will die.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1,535
Points
178
Those deaths out number the illegal use of a gun...............and yet we don't ban lawn mowers ladders or even bathtubs....that kill way more people every single year than rifles do...you idiot....

Are you really this stupid? Guns are one of the most heavily regulated products on the planet.....and you sitting there like an idiot saying they aren't is just stupid.....
Geez, you are one stupid Querdeken!
I would guess that among the Querdeken you hold the honored position of Dumfuken Supreme.

I'm going to guess you have a special meaning for "illegal" but
Cars have a purpose, transportation
Mowers cut grass
Bathtubs are for hygiene, something I'm sure amazes you, no, it's not a urinal.
What is the purpose of a gun other than to kill people?

AND when did I say rifle?
When did I say AR-15?

Do you have any idea how difficult is is to commit suicide with a long rifle?
Try it, we'll wait.

You keep trying to lie your way out of your stupidity but all you're doing is looking more Querdeken by the minute.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1,535
Points
178
Morons.....idiots who can pass any background check and are too stupid to not do it, sell guns to criminals...or, in the case of baby mommas, mothers and grand mothers of gang bangers, they are either paid to buy the guns, or they are threatened with violence to buy the guns...

Or they steal the guns....the L.A. gangs have dedicated robbery crews who just steal guns....

A little basic research into this topic would go a long way to make you not look like an idiot..
I checked and I can't find anything under "Morons...Idiots" gun manufacturer.
Perhaps you could show us a link?

Guns a manufactued by "law abiding companies."
Sold to "law abiding dealers"
Then sold to "law abiding gun owners."

No place in there for any criminal activity UNLESS, of course, not all "law abiding gun" people are not actually law abiding.

No my tiny Brained Querdeken, the source for ALL "criminal guns" are "law abiding citizens" just like you.

So when that four year old is shot playing in her bedroom, you did it.
When 10-12 people are shot in a gang fight, you did it.
When that 6 year old shoots his infant brother, you are guilty.

The changes I propose would severely restrict the ability of criminals to obtain firearms through current channels.
They will try other channels and we'll shut them down.
ALL without violating anyone's rights.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1,535
Points
178

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1,535
Points
178
States have had them and they failed...Canada tried to register just 5 million long guns....not 600 million guns....and that failed...you doofus........

Besides being unConstitutional and unnecessary...and stupid.....registration doesn't work at stopping crime...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”


When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.
A the head of the Dumfuken copies and pases again.

BUT

Oh ye of empty head...

I said FEDERAL, no state.

Can't work at the state level because all one has to do is cross state lines to get what they want.

FEDERAL
FEDERAL
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top