Repealing the second amendment...

[Slade3200]

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

Nothing you guys propose achieves this. If you want to do what you say you want to do...stop punishing normal gun owners....and pass sentencing laws for gun criminals, actual gun criminals, who use guns for rape, robbery and murder....30-life for any crime where a gun is used....30-life if you are a prohibited criminal and are caught with a gun....this is how Japan stopped their Yakuza from shooting each other.....we need to do this...

Anything else is simply baby step gun confiscation....

I agree, we shouldnt punish law abiding citizens. But my point still stands and you haven’t said anything that is convincing me otherwise

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

The way you achieve what you want....long prison sentences for gun criminals...anything else is just stupid....

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison.

If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

I’m fine for striked punishment for gun crimes. I think we already have pretty strict punishment. Your argument still doesn’t address the point that making access harder for criminals will reduce violence and that is the purpose of gun control laws. I agree that some
Laws may be counter productive and hurt law abiding citizens. I’m fine with reforming those. But I also recognize that some laws very likely have saved lives

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

Criminals don’t purchase firearms, they steal.

Some do, some don’t

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

At one point the current laws were the “new frivolous laws” and you were probably saying the same bullshit you are saying now. So now you want to enforce them?

The current laws are not being enforced, criminal control not gun control

How about both and we do our best to make our world safer

 

[danielpalos]

How is that any different than capitalism?

Like night and day, With real capitalism what is someone else’s is never yours. Instead of taking someone else’s you go out and get your own through innovation, hard work and the like.
Everything is based on the individual that some fucked up village

With Capitalism..you are always struggling to take what you want from the other guy..this is inevitable as resource is finite....every rich man stands on the shoulders of a thousand poor men. Pure Capitalism is like an infinite school of sharks..all tearing at each other to get to the meat. A brief reading of the early 20th shows the inevitable results. For the successful shark--life is great..for the vast majority of small fish, not so much. The promise of becoming one of the sharks is what is supposed to motivate the smaller fish to produce..but over time..it does not work. Remember, resource is finite. Our current system is much better...it recognizes that not everyone is going to be a shark..and provides some incentive to be happy as a fish.

you are always struggling to take what you want from the other guy.

--LOL

nice try

try again

socialism can not function without "taking from the other guy" ya big dope

every rich man stands on the shoulders of a thousand poor men


you mean like the socialists sanders clinton or Gore for that matter


--LOL

One does not preclude the other...Socialism has no defender in me..except in small doses. In Socialism..the State takes...in unbridled Capitalism the State supports the Plutocracy taking--common denominator? The large take from the small..to the small..the effect is the same. Our system..being an amalgam....ameliorates that taking..does not eliminate it..of course.

Don't really care about any one politician--they're all rich--so yes..I mean all of them..Trump of course..being both politician and Plutocrat.

the difference is

with capitalism i have a choice to participate

with socialism i am forced to participate and in the end at the end of a barrel of a gun

no thanks for your brand of government

Unlike Prohibition?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So, we house this ever increasing prison population at public expense--and you think it will solve something? It hasn't yet.

Universal background checks and the elimination of untraceable private sales only makes sense. I'm a gun owner and a staunch believer in the 2nd. I believe that the ole' their coming to take our guns' is nothing but manipulation. Anyone with any sense can see that that is not going to happen. Thus, it is just a tired political rallying cry and a right-wing litmus test...nothing more.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Folks who want no controls at all of gun ownership say that they are the last check and balance on the Govt.. That their being armed is a guarantee against govt. excess and over-reach.
How absurd is that? If the govt. came after someone..they are nothing but f'ked--no matter how many guns they have...the govt. has more, bigger and used by people with better training.

If one is not a criminal or a crazy...undergoing a background check upon purchasing their weapon should pose no issue.

Shit for brains, Our military and law-enforcement are overwhelmingly pro second amendment. They would never go for firearm confiscation, That would result in millions on both sides dying. Universal background checks are for spineless control freaks like yourself. There is a reason why your so called universal background checks were slapped down, spineless fuckers like yourselves try to control everybody.
Violent criminals should be put down that’s how you limit population in prisons

***yawn***
Not much real to say huh? Reading comprehension could use a little boost as well. I believe I said that confiscation of guns is a non-starter--but your knee-jerk no doubt got in the way of what passes for your intelligence. I'm tired of children paying the price for your penis substitute. Anything that limits criminals and crazies from gun ownership is fine with me. If that includes you..oh well.

BTW..as a retired Veteran with combat time--you're full of shit if you think that the military is all about zero controls on private gun ownership...I took a bit of a poll at the VA hospital a few months ago..a little more than half present favored background checks. The reason that there are no universal checks..despite the majority of Americans favoring them..has more to do with the NRA and the gun lobby in general..along with gerrymandering.

But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate nuance..or facts. Just keep regurgitating the NRA talking points...You'll do fine.

Yes, typical anti gunner....immediately go to the "gun is a penis" comparison......moron.

The reason the majority of people answer polling questions about background checks the way they do is they don't understand the issue and the question isn't honest.

The question is not..."Do you favor universal background checks if it requires universal gun registration?" And there is no question that points out..."Do you realize that universal gun registration has led to gun confiscation in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, California and New York, and now that you know this, do you favor universal background checks which will require universal gun registration?"

Ask you buddies, if they exist, those questions....then get back to us.

Damn..it's as though I'm shouting into a well...I'm not an 'anti-gunner' are you stupid..or is it just that you can't read? I own 3 guns..and support the 2nd. Idiots..sheesh!
I will put it to you that most of us DO understand..and reject your premise...period. I reject your slanted characterizations and I reject your comparisons of the United States to other countries. Last I checked There were tens of millions of guns legally owned in California...quite a few in New York as well. Because some losers get their weapons taken..most because they break the law..does NOT validate your argument.

That there are abuses..notably the failure to return confiscated weapons to lawful owners does NOT validate your argument. No system is perfect..and you will always find some problem. So?

The people that live in the red area are pro second amendment, the people that live in the blue areas are like you... control freaks
The divide in this country is urban and rural, everything else is secondary...

What works in the blue areas certainly does not work in the red areas, thank God for the electoral college.

Uh..hello from Twin Falls Idaho? It is not anywhere as simple as you would like it to be. It is not about being 'control freaks' it is about trying to solve a horrible problem in this country..gun violence..especially mass shootings. It seems you are prepared to accept those sort of things as the cost of having a 2nd amendment. Not everyone in the Red States see it that way at all. I know that there is no perfect solution..and the nature of our culture will always accept a level of violence. But there are things we can do...to reduce both the frequency and the severity of that violence. You don't think so. Fair enough--but don't think for a minute that you represent the views of all of us in the Red States.
You do not.

 

[Rustic]

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

The way you achieve what you want....long prison sentences for gun criminals...anything else is just stupid....

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to toy pistols



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison.

If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

I’m fine for striked punishment for gun crimes. I think we already have pretty strict punishment. Your argument still doesn’t address the point that making access harder for criminals will reduce violence and that is the purpose of gun control laws. I agree that some
Laws may be counter productive and hurt law abiding citizens. I’m fine with reforming those. But I also recognize that some laws very likely have saved lives

New frivolous gun laws are absolutely unnecessary and unconstitutional

 

[Rustic]

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

At one point the current laws were the “new frivolous laws” and you were probably saying the same bullshit you are saying now. So now you want to enforce them?

The current laws are not being enforced, criminal control not gun control

How about both and we do our best to make our world safer

Let’s start by making firearm purchases easier for law abiding people. It takes around five minutes to run a background check, it should be llike a Visa card instantaneous.
Also like many other purchases a person should be able to purchase firearms absolutely anonymously.

 

[Rustic]

Shit for brains, Our military and law-enforcement are overwhelmingly pro second amendment. They would never go for firearm confiscation, That would result in millions on both sides dying. Universal background checks are for spineless control freaks like yourself. There is a reason why your so called universal background checks were slapped down, spineless fuckers like yourselves try to control everybody.
Violent criminals should be put down that’s how you limit population in prisons

***yawn***
Not much real to say huh? Reading comprehension could use a little boost as well. I believe I said that confiscation of guns is a non-starter--but your knee-jerk no doubt got in the way of what passes for your intelligence. I'm tired of children paying the price for your penis substitute. Anything that limits criminals and crazies from gun ownership is fine with me. If that includes you..oh well.

BTW..as a retired Veteran with combat time--you're full of shit if you think that the military is all about zero controls on private gun ownership...I took a bit of a poll at the VA hospital a few months ago..a little more than half present favored background checks. The reason that there are no universal checks..despite the majority of Americans favoring them..has more to do with the NRA and the gun lobby in general..along with gerrymandering.

But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate nuance..or facts. Just keep regurgitating the NRA talking points...You'll do fine.

Yes, typical anti gunner....immediately go to the "gun is a penis" comparison......moron.

The reason the majority of people answer polling questions about background checks the way they do is they don't understand the issue and the question isn't honest.

The question is not..."Do you favor universal background checks if it requires universal gun registration?" And there is no question that points out..."Do you realize that universal gun registration has led to gun confiscation in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, California and New York, and now that you know this, do you favor universal background checks which will require universal gun registration?"

Ask you buddies, if they exist, those questions....then get back to us.

Damn..it's as though I'm shouting into a well...I'm not an 'anti-gunner' are you stupid..or is it just that you can't read? I own 3 guns..and support the 2nd. Idiots..sheesh!
I will put it to you that most of us DO understand..and reject your premise...period. I reject your slanted characterizations and I reject your comparisons of the United States to other countries. Last I checked There were tens of millions of guns legally owned in California...quite a few in New York as well. Because some losers get their weapons taken..most because they break the law..does NOT validate your argument.

That there are abuses..notably the failure to return confiscated weapons to lawful owners does NOT validate your argument. No system is perfect..and you will always find some problem. So?

The people that live in the red area are pro second amendment, the people that live in the blue areas are like you... control freaks
The divide in this country is urban and rural, everything else is secondary...

What works in the blue areas certainly does not work in the red areas, thank God for the electoral college.

Uh..hello from Twin Falls Idaho? It is not anywhere as simple as you would like it to be. It is not about being 'control freaks' it is about trying to solve a horrible problem in this country..gun violence..especially mass shootings. It seems you are prepared to accept those sort of things as the cost of having a 2nd amendment. Not everyone in the Red States see it that way at all. I know that there is no perfect solution..and the nature of our culture will always accept a level of violence. But there are things we can do...to reduce both the frequency and the severity of that violence. You don't think so. Fair enough--but don't think for a minute that you represent the views of all of us in the Red States.
You do not.

Less than a percent of a percent of firearms in this are used by violent criminals to enact violence.
A Person has much, much Greater chance of dying from falling trees or falling out of bed then being killed by a mass shooter in this country.
Firearms are the least of our problems, the real problem is the breakdown of the traditional American family. But you won’t go there because it’s hard to address that.
In the red areas of the country there is basically no chance of dying from someone using a firearm.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

***yawn***
Not much real to say huh? Reading comprehension could use a little boost as well. I believe I said that confiscation of guns is a non-starter--but your knee-jerk no doubt got in the way of what passes for your intelligence. I'm tired of children paying the price for your penis substitute. Anything that limits criminals and crazies from gun ownership is fine with me. If that includes you..oh well.

BTW..as a retired Veteran with combat time--you're full of shit if you think that the military is all about zero controls on private gun ownership...I took a bit of a poll at the VA hospital a few months ago..a little more than half present favored background checks. The reason that there are no universal checks..despite the majority of Americans favoring them..has more to do with the NRA and the gun lobby in general..along with gerrymandering.

But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate nuance..or facts. Just keep regurgitating the NRA talking points...You'll do fine.

Yes, typical anti gunner....immediately go to the "gun is a penis" comparison......moron.

The reason the majority of people answer polling questions about background checks the way they do is they don't understand the issue and the question isn't honest.

The question is not..."Do you favor universal background checks if it requires universal gun registration?" And there is no question that points out..."Do you realize that universal gun registration has led to gun confiscation in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, California and New York, and now that you know this, do you favor universal background checks which will require universal gun registration?"

Ask you buddies, if they exist, those questions....then get back to us.

Damn..it's as though I'm shouting into a well...I'm not an 'anti-gunner' are you stupid..or is it just that you can't read? I own 3 guns..and support the 2nd. Idiots..sheesh!
I will put it to you that most of us DO understand..and reject your premise...period. I reject your slanted characterizations and I reject your comparisons of the United States to other countries. Last I checked There were tens of millions of guns legally owned in California...quite a few in New York as well. Because some losers get their weapons taken..most because they break the law..does NOT validate your argument.

That there are abuses..notably the failure to return confiscated weapons to lawful owners does NOT validate your argument. No system is perfect..and you will always find some problem. So?

The people that live in the red area are pro second amendment, the people that live in the blue areas are like you... control freaks
The divide in this country is urban and rural, everything else is secondary...

What works in the blue areas certainly does not work in the red areas, thank God for the electoral college.

Uh..hello from Twin Falls Idaho? It is not anywhere as simple as you would like it to be. It is not about being 'control freaks' it is about trying to solve a horrible problem in this country..gun violence..especially mass shootings. It seems you are prepared to accept those sort of things as the cost of having a 2nd amendment. Not everyone in the Red States see it that way at all. I know that there is no perfect solution..and the nature of our culture will always accept a level of violence. But there are things we can do...to reduce both the frequency and the severity of that violence. You don't think so. Fair enough--but don't think for a minute that you represent the views of all of us in the Red States.
You do not.

Less than a percent of a percent of firearms in this are used by violent criminals to enact violence.
A Person has much, much Greater chance of dying from falling trees or falling out of bed then being killed by a mass shooter in this country.
Firearms are the least of our problems, the real problem is the breakdown of the traditional American family. But you won’t go there because it’s hard to address that.
In the red areas of the country there is basically no chance of dying from someone using a firearm.

One map deserves another, I guess--a bit old I know..but i doubt if it has materially changed:

States with the highest and lowest rates of gun deaths

Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

United States – Total Number of Gun Deaths

Guns in Idaho — Firearms, gun law and gun control

I disagree with your statement..and the facts do tend to back me up..not that it matters.

I do agree that one has a greater chance of dying in a number of ways....but is frequency really the way to measure this?

The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are close to zero--so do we agree that the terrorist threat is overblown?

 

[Rustic]

Yes, typical anti gunner....immediately go to the "gun is a penis" comparison......moron.

The reason the majority of people answer polling questions about background checks the way they do is they don't understand the issue and the question isn't honest.

The question is not..."Do you favor universal background checks if it requires universal gun registration?" And there is no question that points out..."Do you realize that universal gun registration has led to gun confiscation in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, California and New York, and now that you know this, do you favor universal background checks which will require universal gun registration?"

Ask you buddies, if they exist, those questions....then get back to us.

Damn..it's as though I'm shouting into a well...I'm not an 'anti-gunner' are you stupid..or is it just that you can't read? I own 3 guns..and support the 2nd. Idiots..sheesh!
I will put it to you that most of us DO understand..and reject your premise...period. I reject your slanted characterizations and I reject your comparisons of the United States to other countries. Last I checked There were tens of millions of guns legally owned in California...quite a few in New York as well. Because some losers get their weapons taken..most because they break the law..does NOT validate your argument.

That there are abuses..notably the failure to return confiscated weapons to lawful owners does NOT validate your argument. No system is perfect..and you will always find some problem. So?

The people that live in the red area are pro second amendment, the people that live in the blue areas are like you... control freaks
The divide in this country is urban and rural, everything else is secondary...

What works in the blue areas certainly does not work in the red areas, thank God for the electoral college.

Uh..hello from Twin Falls Idaho? It is not anywhere as simple as you would like it to be. It is not about being 'control freaks' it is about trying to solve a horrible problem in this country..gun violence..especially mass shootings. It seems you are prepared to accept those sort of things as the cost of having a 2nd amendment. Not everyone in the Red States see it that way at all. I know that there is no perfect solution..and the nature of our culture will always accept a level of violence. But there are things we can do...to reduce both the frequency and the severity of that violence. You don't think so. Fair enough--but don't think for a minute that you represent the views of all of us in the Red States.
You do not.

Less than a percent of a percent of firearms in this are used by violent criminals to enact violence.
A Person has much, much Greater chance of dying from falling trees or falling out of bed then being killed by a mass shooter in this country.
Firearms are the least of our problems, the real problem is the breakdown of the traditional American family. But you won’t go there because it’s hard to address that.
In the red areas of the country there is basically no chance of dying from someone using a firearm.

One map deserves another, I guess--a bit old I know..but i doubt if it has materially changed:

States with the highest and lowest rates of gun deaths

Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

United States – Total Number of Gun Deaths

Guns in Idaho — Firearms, gun law and gun control

I disagree with your statement..and the facts do tend to back me up..not that it matters.

I do agree that one has a greater chance of dying in a number of ways....but is frequency really the way to measure this?

The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are close to zero--so do we agree that the terrorist threat is overblown?

So you are saying more frivolous gun laws will stop violent criminals from killing more people?
You need a map by County not just a state map. Like I said this country is divided by rural and urban areas. I would say your map would look much different if it was by county.
Firearms outnumber people by many, many times over in rural areas. And violence is nonexistent in those areas. So it’s not the firearms… It must be the criminals in urban areas And the criminals are not being controlled. The vast majority of violent crime in this country is done by repeat offenders how does more frivolous gun control laws stop that?
Do firearms make people into instant killers?
There are probably 400,000,000+ firearms of this country, what is the percentage of firearms used for violent criminal behavior? Less than A percent of a percent maybe? probably less...

Enacting more frivolous gun laws will that stop criminals from being violent?
How about this enforce the laws we have? And be much, much more harsh on violent criminals?

 

[Rustic]

 

[2aguy]

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

The way you achieve what you want....long prison sentences for gun criminals...anything else is just stupid....

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to toy pistols



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison.

If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

I’m fine for striked punishment for gun crimes. I think we already have pretty strict punishment. Your argument still doesn’t address the point that making access harder for criminals will reduce violence and that is the purpose of gun control laws. I agree that some
Laws may be counter productive and hurt law abiding citizens. I’m fine with reforming those. But I also recognize that some laws very likely have saved lives

You aren't proposing anything that will make it harder for criminals. All it does is create legal traps for law abiding gun owners...as the New York SAFE act does with recertification deadlines that criminals don't comply with but law abiding gun owners will lose their gun Rights forever if they miss the deadline.

The only way to save lives is to lock up violent criminals.....as I have posted over and over from various cities, the thing driving their gun murder rates are revolving door policies for violent gun offenders....

 

[2aguy]

Yes, typical anti gunner....immediately go to the "gun is a penis" comparison......moron.

The reason the majority of people answer polling questions about background checks the way they do is they don't understand the issue and the question isn't honest.

The question is not..."Do you favor universal background checks if it requires universal gun registration?" And there is no question that points out..."Do you realize that universal gun registration has led to gun confiscation in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, California and New York, and now that you know this, do you favor universal background checks which will require universal gun registration?"

Ask you buddies, if they exist, those questions....then get back to us.

Damn..it's as though I'm shouting into a well...I'm not an 'anti-gunner' are you stupid..or is it just that you can't read? I own 3 guns..and support the 2nd. Idiots..sheesh!
I will put it to you that most of us DO understand..and reject your premise...period. I reject your slanted characterizations and I reject your comparisons of the United States to other countries. Last I checked There were tens of millions of guns legally owned in California...quite a few in New York as well. Because some losers get their weapons taken..most because they break the law..does NOT validate your argument.

That there are abuses..notably the failure to return confiscated weapons to lawful owners does NOT validate your argument. No system is perfect..and you will always find some problem. So?

The people that live in the red area are pro second amendment, the people that live in the blue areas are like you... control freaks
The divide in this country is urban and rural, everything else is secondary...

What works in the blue areas certainly does not work in the red areas, thank God for the electoral college.

Uh..hello from Twin Falls Idaho? It is not anywhere as simple as you would like it to be. It is not about being 'control freaks' it is about trying to solve a horrible problem in this country..gun violence..especially mass shootings. It seems you are prepared to accept those sort of things as the cost of having a 2nd amendment. Not everyone in the Red States see it that way at all. I know that there is no perfect solution..and the nature of our culture will always accept a level of violence. But there are things we can do...to reduce both the frequency and the severity of that violence. You don't think so. Fair enough--but don't think for a minute that you represent the views of all of us in the Red States.
You do not.

Less than a percent of a percent of firearms in this are used by violent criminals to enact violence.
A Person has much, much Greater chance of dying from falling trees or falling out of bed then being killed by a mass shooter in this country.
Firearms are the least of our problems, the real problem is the breakdown of the traditional American family. But you won’t go there because it’s hard to address that.
In the red areas of the country there is basically no chance of dying from someone using a firearm.

One map deserves another, I guess--a bit old I know..but i doubt if it has materially changed:

States with the highest and lowest rates of gun deaths

Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

United States – Total Number of Gun Deaths

Guns in Idaho — Firearms, gun law and gun control

I disagree with your statement..and the facts do tend to back me up..not that it matters.

I do agree that one has a greater chance of dying in a number of ways....but is frequency really the way to measure this?

The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are close to zero--so do we agree that the terrorist threat is overblown?

Notice...they use "Gun Deaths," not Gun murders, why? Because if they use gun deaths they can lump in suicides....which inflates their numbers dramatically...since there were over 320 million guns in the country in 2010 and 9,616 gun murders, and of those, 70-80% of the victims were criminals....

Suicides...over 21,000......that is how they get their numbers so high.....

 

[Issa]

The US should let go of its love for guns....is becoming laughable.
Check any news outlet you will read, hear and see the following:
Son kills his entire family
Husband kills his entire family.
Work shooting.
Preschool shooting.
Freeway shooting.
Church shooting.
Game shooting.

Do gun lovers know that most of the world doesn't have this madness, they you even know what leaving without guns feels like?
I do i lived ina gun free country , it' ******* pathetic that you guys love guns and violence.

Firearms have no control over people, most people learn that grade school

We have countries with strict gun laws and we have the US. Americans are dying by thousands shot and killed because firearms are all 9ver the place....what is it hard to understand?

 

[Rustic]

The US should let go of its love for guns....is becoming laughable.
Check any news outlet you will read, hear and see the following:
Son kills his entire family
Husband kills his entire family.
Work shooting.
Preschool shooting.
Freeway shooting.
Church shooting.
Game shooting.

Do gun lovers know that most of the world doesn't have this madness, they you even know what leaving without guns feels like?
I do i lived ina gun free country , it' ******* pathetic that you guys love guns and violence.

Firearms have no control over people, most people learn that grade school

We have countries with strict gun laws and we have the US. Americans are dying by thousands shot and killed because firearms are all 9ver the place....what is it hard to understand?

Only in urban controlled areas by progressives, Due to frivolous gun-control laws.

Rural areas where firearms outnumber people by many, many times over violent crime is almost unheard of... fact

Firearms have no control over people, most people learn that in grade school

 

[Slade3200]

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

The way you achieve what you want....long prison sentences for gun criminals...anything else is just stupid....

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to toy pistols



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison.

If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

I’m fine for striked punishment for gun crimes. I think we already have pretty strict punishment. Your argument still doesn’t address the point that making access harder for criminals will reduce violence and that is the purpose of gun control laws. I agree that some
Laws may be counter productive and hurt law abiding citizens. I’m fine with reforming those. But I also recognize that some laws very likely have saved lives

New frivolous gun laws are absolutely unnecessary and unconstitutional

Yeah you already said that. The record is skipping

 

[Slade3200]

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

At one point the current laws were the “new frivolous laws” and you were probably saying the same bullshit you are saying now. So now you want to enforce them?

The current laws are not being enforced, criminal control not gun control

How about both and we do our best to make our world safer

Let’s start by making firearm purchases easier for law abiding people. It takes around five minutes to run a background check, it should be llike a Visa card instantaneous.
Also like many other purchases a person should be able to purchase firearms absolutely anonymously.

Haha. So you want to make background checks quicker and also make purchases anonymous? I can’t believe nobody listens to your genius!

Maybe next we can build that wall and also open the border!

 

[emilynghiem]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or

• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

Dear Rustic
I'd sooner call for a Constitutional Convention to address
political beliefs, political parties as political religions,
and some agreement how to interpret and apply
the First Amendment consistently to protect people
against political beliefs/religions similar to religious beliefs

I'd also call for parties and precinct chairs together
on the idea of using the Electoral College to organize
proportional representation per district by party.
And using those panels of reps to mediate conflicts
and spell out position papers, of points of agreement
and disagreement on various issues, to submit to Congress for
review and reforms. So wherever there are conflicts in beliefs,
these are spelled out, and it is made clear not to prohibit or
establish one belief over another, but allow taxpayers to
separate policies and funding on those issues of disagreement
where beliefs are involved that are supposed to be equally protected.

 

[Rustic]

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

At one point the current laws were the “new frivolous laws” and you were probably saying the same bullshit you are saying now. So now you want to enforce them?

The current laws are not being enforced, criminal control not gun control

How about both and we do our best to make our world safer

Let’s start by making firearm purchases easier for law abiding people. It takes around five minutes to run a background check, it should be llike a Visa card instantaneous.
Also like many other purchases a person should be able to purchase firearms absolutely anonymously.

Haha. So you want to make background checks quicker and also make purchases anonymous? I can’t believe nobody listens to your genius!

Maybe next we can build that wall and also open the border!

There is no reason why background checks can’t take only a few seconds, The FBI already Does not keep records of firearm purchases why should anyone else?