Psych exams for gun purchases

[Big Bend Texas]

Uh, we were able to win the revolution because France and Spain intervened on our side to stick it to the Brits...

The war would have been over in the first year, two at the outside without armed militias and we'd still be speaking Th Queen's English.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Yes, let's compare car regulation and gun regulation ALL DAY.

You guys step in it every time, with that silly argument.

Owning and driving cars are heavily restricted privileges, not rights.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Cars aren't designed to kill people. If you want to treat cars like guns, let's have licensing, registration, mandentory insurance AND a large section of police manpower to enforce it.

Guns aren't designed to kill people either, they are simply made to deliver projectiles with varying rates of fire and accuracy to whatever target the user chooses.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Today we have tanks, howitzers, fighters, bombers, and ******* NUKES. We aren't going to arm ourselves well enough to resist anyone..

Fabricated BS. Try telling that to the VC and Taliban and watch them laugh you out of the room just before executing you.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

It doesn’t matter how many violent criminals you put in prison if you keep letting them back out…you idiot.

There be the key point.

We saw a steady, rapid and pronounced drop in violent crime during the period such laws as 3 strikes were in force and drug trafficking laws that landed people in prison for 20 years or more.

If you want to reduce any kind of crime the place to start is with making punishments so severe the risk of committing a given crime simply isn't worth the potential pay off.

Of course, citizens being armed themselves is also a huge deterrent.

 

[JoeB131]

Cars accidentally kill more people than guns do when criminals intentionally shoot people….so that means, you dumb ass…cars are more dangerous than guns and need to be banned.

Actually, you keep trying to qualify numbers.

We have 45,222 gun deaths a year in this country. This includes suicides, domestic violence and accidents, not just criminals.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

We have 42,915 automobile deaths a year.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But let's look at cars.

Every year, the Auto industry puts in new features to make cars safer. We have mandatory licensing, insurance, registration, safety checks, air quality checks in order to be able to operate a car. We have thousands of police whose job it is to drive out there on the roads to make sure that people are operating their cars safely. In short, we have a lot of government regulation into car ownership. You might even call it "Well-regulated".

And the Auto industry welcomes this. They don't want their products associated with fiery death.

NOW-

The Gun industry is exactly the opposite. They produce products that are more dangerous every year, they push back against every gun law, no matter how sensible. They specifically market to the most fringe characters, which is why you have 3% of the population with 50% of the guns.

 

[fncceo]

But let's look at cars.

I haven't checked lately, but I'm pretty sure the privilege to drive isn't a Constitutional Right.

 

[JoeB131]

Fabricated BS. Try telling that to the VC and Taliban and watch them laugh you out of the room just before executing you.

Really? When did they "defeat us". We kept beating them senseless for years until we realized there wasn't much point to any of it.

There be the key point.

We saw a steady, rapid and pronounced drop in violent crime during the period such laws as 3 strikes were in force and drug trafficking laws that landed people in prison for 20 years or more.

If you want to reduce any kind of crime the place to start is with making punishments so severe the risk of committing a given crime simply isn't worth the potential pay off.

Of course, citizens being armed themselves is also a huge deterrent.

We saw a drop in violent crime because after 1990, the Baby Boomers started aging out of the "Committing dumb ass crime" demographic.

If armed citizens were a deterent, Crime wouldn't be shooting through the roof now.

I go back to my point. We have 100 million Americans with a police record. How many of them are we going to lock up rather than just stop handing out guns to the ones we don't.

 

[JoeB131]

I haven't checked lately, but I'm pretty sure the privilege to drive isn't a Constitutional Right.

Neither is gun ownership.

 

[JoeB131]

The war would have been over in the first year, two at the outside without armed militias and we'd still be speaking Th Queen's English.

Actually, most of the fighting was done between loyalists and rebels. The British didn't start sending regular troops until later, and they never sent all that many of them.

Owning and driving cars are heavily restricted privileges, not rights.

And so should owning guns.

Here's the thing. Cars are actually necessary. We need them to go to work, shop, get from place to place.

There's really no good reason to own a gun. Other countries ban private gun ownership, and they have nowhere near the problems we have.

Guns aren't designed to kill people either, they are simply made to deliver projectiles with varying rates of fire and accuracy to whatever target the user chooses.

Wow.... I think you just broke the stupid meter...

 

[fncceo]

Neither is gun ownership.

You're actually wrong ...

“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.”

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Really? When did they "defeat us". We kept beating them senseless for years until we realized there wasn't much point to any of it.



We saw a drop in violent crime because after 1990, the Baby Boomers started aging out of the "Committing dumb ass crime" demographic.

If armed citizens were a deterent, Crime wouldn't be shooting through the roof now.

I go back to my point. We have 100 million Americans with a police record. How many of them are we going to lock up rather than just stop handing out guns to the ones we don't.

We left when we figured out that we could never win in either place without such losses as to make Americans rise up in revolt to stop those wars.

Rates are relative to total population so your claim is bogus on it's face Boomers started aging out of the ages where most commit crimes in the seventies and ourselves and our kids have been producing fewer children since that time with each successive generation.

Crime isn't shooting through the roof anywhere except in blue cities and primarily in states that make lawful carry heavily restricted.

We say just a few days ago a woman stop a mass shooting in progress with her PC weapon so don't tell me carry does not stop crimes or that it isn't a deterrent.

Start locking up the worst violent and drug offenders for 3-5 decades or more and we won't have to worry long about a growing prison population because eventually the consequences become enough of a deterrent you have far fewer new offenders.

It worked from 94-09 when such things as 3 Strikes laws started being repealed so we know we can make it work again.

Nobody is "giving" guns to criminals so stop lying.

Lawful licensed and concealed carry work as very effective tools with very few and very rare negative consequences and even those far outweigh the risk of even more violent crime in their Absence.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wow.... I think you just broke the stupid meter...

No, as usual that would be yourself. No gun is designed to kill people, they are all simply manufactured to fire different rounds, at varying rates of fire and accuracy.

How they are used is always determined by the person holding them.

Even our military rifles and pistols are not designed to kill, just to stop the enemy and arguably a wounded enemy soldier or terrorist is far more valuable than a dead one because nobody is going to waste lives trying to rescue the dead.

Self defense is the most basic right we have and without firearms that becomes exponentially more difficult particularly for the old, sick, weak, and small.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Actually, most of the fighting was done between loyalists and rebels. The British didn't start sending regular troops until later, and they never sent all that many of them.

There were more than 10,000 British Regulars in "The Colonies" at the outbreak of hostilities and their loyalists militias were always under British control through British Officers using British Military Tactics.

At any given time they had more than 20 warships either patrolling the east coast or directly supporting campaigns on coastal cities in what became the US.

You seem to know as little about history as you do firearms.

 

[Hollie]

Neither is gun ownership.

Rabid lefties and their ''.... because I say so'', arguments. Pretty darn funny.

Supreme Court: Gun Ownership an Individual Right

In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can...

www.npr.org

In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways.

 

[JoeB131]

We left when we figured out that we could never win in either place without such losses as to make Americans rise up in revolt to stop those wars.

No, we left when we realized our government lied to us about why we were over there to start with.

There were more than 10,000 British Regulars in "The Colonies" at the outbreak of hostilities and their loyalists militias were always under British control through British Officers using British Military Tactics.

At any given time they had more than 20 warships either patrolling the east coast or directly supporting campaigns on coastal cities in what became the US.

You seem to know as little about history as you do firearms.

Actually, those are pretty minimal numbers compared to the military strengths in Europe at the time. 10K soliders and 20 ships? That's kind of a joke.

The reality is, the British never controlled that much of the country during the war. They took New York, they held Philadelphia for a time, a few other ports and that was kind of it. They didn't flood the country with troops because they didn't have them.

 

[JoeB131]

Rabid lefties and their ''.... because I say so'', arguments. Pretty darn funny.

Supreme Court: Gun Ownership an Individual Right

In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can...

www.npr.org

In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways.

So if it was that obvious, why did it take until 2010 for a bare majority of the court to determine that?

This is the problem with legislating from the bench, whether it be Heller or Roe v. Wade.

 

[Hollie]

So if it was that obvious, why did it take until 2010 for a bare majority of the court to determine that?

This is the problem with legislating from the bench, whether it be Heller or Roe v. Wade.

Why do post meaningless comments about matters you know nothing about and then make meaningless excuses and sidesteps for those false and innacurate comments?

 

[2aguy]

Actually, you keep trying to qualify numbers.

We have 45,222 gun deaths a year in this country. This includes suicides, domestic violence and accidents, not just criminals.

View attachment 652980

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

We have 42,915 automobile deaths a year.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But let's look at cars.

Every year, the Auto industry puts in new features to make cars safer. We have mandatory licensing, insurance, registration, safety checks, air quality checks in order to be able to operate a car. We have thousands of police whose job it is to drive out there on the roads to make sure that people are operating their cars safely. In short, we have a lot of government regulation into car ownership. You might even call it "Well-regulated".

And the Auto industry welcomes this. They don't want their products associated with fiery death.

NOW-

The Gun industry is exactly the opposite. They produce products that are more dangerous every year, they push back against every gun law, no matter how sensible. They specifically market to the most fringe characters, which is why you have 3% of the population with 50% of the guns.

Qualifying?

No, telling the truth....the majority of gun deaths are suicide.

The majority of gun murder victims are criminals, not normal people.

The majority of the non-criminal murder victims are the friends, family and associates of criminals hit by mistake.....

Americans use their legal guns to stop rape, robbery, murder, beatings, stabbings, and even mass public shootings....like in West Virginia this week.....1.1 million times a year according to the Centers for Disease Control...1.5 million according to the Centers for Disease Control, or 2.5 million according to the most thorough research by Gary Kleck back in the 1990s....

 

[2aguy]

So if it was that obvious, why did it take until 2010 for a bare majority of the court to determine that?

This is the problem with legislating from the bench, whether it be Heller or Roe v. Wade.

Moron, up until fascists like you tried to ban guns, there was no reason to state the ******* obvious......now, we have to explain everything at the level of a 5 year old so dumb asses like you can't fool uninformed Americans..