No more frivolous gun laws...

[Rustic]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

Bingo!!!
We have much bigger fish to fry...

 

[eflatminor]

That settles it!

No action required.

Thanks, bro.

He said no "senseless" laws. That's not the same thing as "no action", you do understand this, yes?

If so, allow me to propose one strategy for dealing with violent crime and in particular, crime involving the use of a firearm: How about we stop imposing restrictions on citizens that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another while at the same time, enact laws whose prescribed punishment is significantly enhanced when the infringing crime is carried out by means of a firearm. For example, if you're tried and convicted of stealing something from a local store, you're subject to a wide range of punishment, from probation to prison. Steal from that same store by holding a gun to someone's head, you get significant prison time, minimal inmate contact and no chance of parole.

That would be doing something. Whether it makes sense or not up for debate.

That’s cool. You are a groundbreaker.

Ah, so when your ignorance is called out, you resort to name calling. That's the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Typical.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That settles it!

No action required.

Thanks, bro.

He said no "senseless" laws. That's not the same thing as "no action", you do understand this, yes?

If so, allow me to propose one strategy for dealing with violent crime and in particular, crime involving the use of a firearm: How about we stop imposing restrictions on citizens that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another while at the same time, enact laws whose prescribed punishment is significantly enhanced when the infringing crime is carried out by means of a firearm. For example, if you're tried and convicted of stealing something from a local store, you're subject to a wide range of punishment, from probation to prison. Steal from that same store by holding a gun to someone's head, you get significant prison time, minimal inmate contact and no chance of parole.

That would be doing something. Whether it makes sense or not up for debate.

That’s cool. You are a groundbreaker.

Ah, so when your ignorance is called out, you resort to name calling. That's the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Typical.

You think being called a groundbreaker is an insult?

 

[Nosmo King]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

 

[eflatminor]

That settles it!

No action required.

Thanks, bro.

He said no "senseless" laws. That's not the same thing as "no action", you do understand this, yes?

If so, allow me to propose one strategy for dealing with violent crime and in particular, crime involving the use of a firearm: How about we stop imposing restrictions on citizens that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another while at the same time, enact laws whose prescribed punishment is significantly enhanced when the infringing crime is carried out by means of a firearm. For example, if you're tried and convicted of stealing something from a local store, you're subject to a wide range of punishment, from probation to prison. Steal from that same store by holding a gun to someone's head, you get significant prison time, minimal inmate contact and no chance of parole.

That would be doing something. Whether it makes sense or not up for debate.

That’s cool. You are a groundbreaker.

Ah, so when your ignorance is called out, you resort to name calling. That's the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Typical.

You think being called a groundbreaker is an insult?

If you were being sincere, I apologize.

 

[Nosmo King]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

 

[Nosmo King]

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

If knives, hands and feet had design uses beyond a means of murder, you may have a point. Could you point out the designed use of assault weapons beyond killing as many people as quickly as possible?

 

[Skull Pilot]

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

If knives, hands and feet had design uses beyond a means of murder, you may have a point. Could you point out the designed use of assault weapons beyond killing as many people as quickly as possible?

The purpose of a tool is decided by the wielder of that tool and not by the tool itself.

For example the purpose of my guns are to protect my life and the life of my wife not to kill. I decide the purpose of the tool
If I use a wrench to crack a person's skull open then I have decides the purpose of that wrench is to crack a skull.

You want to blame a tool for the intent of the person wielding it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That settles it!

No action required.

Thanks, bro.

He said no "senseless" laws. That's not the same thing as "no action", you do understand this, yes?

If so, allow me to propose one strategy for dealing with violent crime and in particular, crime involving the use of a firearm: How about we stop imposing restrictions on citizens that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another while at the same time, enact laws whose prescribed punishment is significantly enhanced when the infringing crime is carried out by means of a firearm. For example, if you're tried and convicted of stealing something from a local store, you're subject to a wide range of punishment, from probation to prison. Steal from that same store by holding a gun to someone's head, you get significant prison time, minimal inmate contact and no chance of parole.

That would be doing something. Whether it makes sense or not up for debate.

That’s cool. You are a groundbreaker.

Ah, so when your ignorance is called out, you resort to name calling. That's the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Typical.

You think being called a groundbreaker is an insult?

If you were being sincere, I apologize.

I was being sarcastic. But I wasn’t insulting you. You might be a bit sensitive.

 

[Nosmo King]

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

If knives, hands and feet had design uses beyond a means of murder, you may have a point. Could you point out the designed use of assault weapons beyond killing as many people as quickly as possible?

The purpose of a tool is decided by the wielder of that tool and not by the tool itself.

For example the purpose of my guns are to protect my life and the life of my wife not to kill. I decide the purpose of the tool
If I use a wrench to crack a person's skull open then I have decides the purpose of that wrench is to crack a skull.

You want to blame a tool for the intent of the person wielding it.

A tried and true fall back retort. But it does not excuse the design purpose of that tool. I might suggest that for self defense you could be adequserved by a revolver or bolt action rifle rather than a semi-automatic firing system fitted with a high capacity magazine. Similarly, your need of a hammer could be adequately served by a framer's hammer rather than a pneumatic jack hammer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

If knives, hands and feet had design uses beyond a means of murder, you may have a point. Could you point out the designed use of assault weapons beyond killing as many people as quickly as possible?

The purpose of a tool is decided by the wielder of that tool and not by the tool itself.

For example the purpose of my guns are to protect my life and the life of my wife not to kill. I decide the purpose of the tool
If I use a wrench to crack a person's skull open then I have decides the purpose of that wrench is to crack a skull.

You want to blame a tool for the intent of the person wielding it.

A tried and true fall back retort. But it does not excuse the design purpose of that tool. I might suggest that for self defense you could be adequserved by a revolver or bolt action rifle rather than a semi-automatic firing system fitted with a high capacity magazine. Similarly, your need of a hammer could be adequately served by a framer's hammer rather than a pneumatic jack hammer.

Actually for self defense why would you want to only be able to fire one round and have to work a bolt before you can fire a second?

Arguing between a revolver or another handgun is ridiculous. But I'm of the mind that 10 rounds is always better than six.

And now we get into the fuzzy area of you deciding what other people need. It's not up to you. If you want a bolt action rifle for self defense go right ahead. I prefer a semiautomatic shotgun for home defense. I prefer an automatic over a revolver. (and just so you know the term automatic when referring to a handgun actually means semiautomatic)

And the fact is that almost 100% of all LEGAL gun owners will never commit any crimes with their guns. So basing anything in order to maybe stop a fraction of a percent of people might do on restricting EVERYONE is ludicrous.

 

[Rustic]

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

If knives, hands and feet had design uses beyond a means of murder, you may have a point. Could you point out the designed use of assault weapons beyond killing as many people as quickly as possible?

irrelevant

 

[Nosmo King]

So mass shootings are no problem?

As far as our crime and murder rates go they are the least of the problems we have.

And therefore unworthy of any consideration?

Where did I imply that?

The fact is that rifles are used in less than 2% of all murders, and in fact 6 times as many people are stabbed to death every year and more that twice as many are beaten to death with nothing more than hands and feet.

Looking objectively, and I know it's easy to get all emotional when multiple people are killed in one event, the real problems in our society when it comes to murder are not rifles of any kind.

SO all this call for "assault" weapons bans and restrictions on semiautomatic rifles will do nothing

If knives, hands and feet had design uses beyond a means of murder, you may have a point. Could you point out the designed use of assault weapons beyond killing as many people as quickly as possible?

irrelevant

Well argued.

 

[eflatminor]

He said no "senseless" laws. That's not the same thing as "no action", you do understand this, yes?

If so, allow me to propose one strategy for dealing with violent crime and in particular, crime involving the use of a firearm: How about we stop imposing restrictions on citizens that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another while at the same time, enact laws whose prescribed punishment is significantly enhanced when the infringing crime is carried out by means of a firearm. For example, if you're tried and convicted of stealing something from a local store, you're subject to a wide range of punishment, from probation to prison. Steal from that same store by holding a gun to someone's head, you get significant prison time, minimal inmate contact and no chance of parole.

That would be doing something. Whether it makes sense or not up for debate.

That’s cool. You are a groundbreaker.

Ah, so when your ignorance is called out, you resort to name calling. That's the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Typical.

You think being called a groundbreaker is an insult?

If you were being sincere, I apologize.

I was being sarcastic. But I wasn’t insulting you. You might be a bit sensitive.

So I was right, you have nothing to add and you think 'no action' is the same thing as standing against senseless laws.

Good luck with all of that.

 

[2aguy]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Who said that. We have analyzed the most commonly recited gun control mantras after each shooting...

Universal background checks.
Magazine limits.
Assault rifle ban.
Gun registration.

They have all been shown to be utterly useless for stopping criminals or solving crimes, and they do not stop mass shooters...

You got anything else?

We have some actual solutions...

Longer jail sentences for criminals who use guns for crimes.

Ending almost all gun free zones for law abiding gun owners.

Dealing with single teenage girls becoming single parents without fathers in the home.

And here.....a left wing, anti gunner actually has some good ideas....notice none of them are the ones you want...

Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable.

A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

 

[2aguy]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

Which gun law would have stopped this...here are the ones you guys croak out every time there is a shooting...

Universal Background checks:

The guy passed current Federally mandated Background checks so would have passed any universal background check for a private sale. And he bought all of his guns through gun stores...so federally mandated background checks were done, and he passed them.

Magazine limits:

He was firing from an elevated firing position, away from the crowd. He could have easily changed out 10 round magazines without a stop in his rate of fire....and he could have just swapped out one rifle for the other 23 as he went....it took the police 72 minutes to breach his door. Magazine limits would not have stopped him.

Gun Registration:

He was a legal gun owner, who planned this 2 years in advance.....he would have simply registered his guns. If he had been a criminal, he would not have been required to register any illegal guns he had because the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States, said that forcing him to register illegal guns would violate his Right against self incrimination.

Assault Rifle ban:

He was rich. France completely bans fully automatic, miltiary rifles...terrorists in France, on government terrorist watch lists, acquired and used fully automatic rifles to murder 142 people between the Charlie Hebdo attack and the attack on Paris......

So.....mass shooters will not be stopped by any of the laws you preach...

By the way, criminals aren't stopped by them either.

 

[2aguy]

WASHINGTON – The head of the National Rifle Association Sunday wouldn’t commit to a new law banning bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre.

“There are monsters like this monster out there every day,” the CEO of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “There are menaces out there every day. People want to be able to protect themselves.”

LaPierre blamed the “elites” who “protect themselves with armed security” for trying to politicize the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Stephen Paddock sprayed bullets from his Las Vegas hotel room into a country music concert, killing 58 people and wounding 500 others.

LaPierre, who had earned $5.1 million in total compensation in 2015 as the head of the NRA, also travels with armed body guards.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/08/nra-ceo-wont-back-bill-banning-bump-stocks/

$51 million for promoting the items that enable a crazy to kill and wound hundreds in eleven minutes. Aren't you bloodthirsty bastards so proud of that.

The NRA teaches gun safety, trains military and police. They fight to keep criminals in jail. They do not support criminals or terrorists getting guns.

You...and other democrats, keep putting violent gun criminals back on the street after they have been arrested for the criminal use of guns....

That blood is on your hands dumb ass...

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

The democrats fight to put violent gun criminals back onto the streets, not the NRA...


The Left’s Phony War on Guns, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review

Chicago has Wild West levels of homicide.

(Worse, in fact; the criminality and violence of the ungoverned West has been greatly exaggerated, and some of those old cow towns had lower per capita crime rates back when they had no formal government than they do today.)

Do you know what kind of crime illegal possession of a firearm is in the state of Illinois?

It is a misdemeanor.

A 2014 study conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times found that in most cases, Cook County judges handed down the minimum sentence for gun possession, and in most cases, the criminals ended up serving far less than that, doing only a few months.

Those charged with simple possession had an average of four prior arrests; those charged with the more serious crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm had an average of ten previous arrests.

Ten arrests, and the eleventh is for a gun-related crime.

One wonders how many undetected crimes are covered by such criminal careers.

Many in Illinois have argued that, given the state of crime there, stiffer sentences are warranted.


A bill was introduced to that end, and it was opposed by Democrats who argued that stiffer sentences for those actually committing crimes with guns would “unfairly target African-Americans,” as the Sun-Times put it.

The NRA, to its discredit, opposed that bill, too, arguing that the penalties for simple possession in absence of other criminal activity were too stiff.


But that’s an argument for liberalizing Illinois gun laws, not for forgoing the punishment of criminals.


The NRA did support harsher punishment for felons in possession of firearms, and for the use of firearms in crimes. Democrats have generally opposed them.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436739/orlando-shooting-gun-control-left-wing-identity-politics

=====================

 

[2aguy]

No law perfectly eliminates crime. But to say that as there is no perfect solution nothing should be tried is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Busy work? What does that accomplish? LOL

After every tragic mass shooting some hammerhead gun nut says two things. No law could have prevented this and, this is not the time to debate gun issues. The first statement is made in spite of the fact that this is the place mass shootings regularly happen. The second statement is made to silence debate in hopes the tragedy would soon be forgotten or overshadowed by some othe event not related to gun violence.

1% of all murders happen in a mass shooting event.
99% of murders happen outside of mass shooting events

So mass shootings are no problem?

they are a problem....but they are not solved by taking guns away from law abiding gun owners...

600 million guns in private hands in the U.S.

Over 16.3 million Americans carry guns for self defense.

Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack, including mass public shootings, 1,500,000 times a year.

The total number of mass public shootings in 2016....6.

Total murdered in mass public shootings in 2016....71.

Total murdered by a rental truck in Nice, France, one attack, vs. 6 mass public shootings.....89.

People murderd with knives in 2016...1,604.

People killed in car accidents....35,161.

So mass public shootings are a problem...they are not solved by taking away the guns of people not doing them.


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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.