should the US prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing or owning large capacity guns ?

[Vrenn]

yeah and they were still the most violent places in the old west ..

No they weren't. The Wild West wasn't so wild after all. You watch too many old Western Movies.

 

[yidnar]

No they weren't. The Wild West wasn't so wild after all. You watch too many old Western Movies.

are you actually trying to claim that deadwood wasnt violent ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, we should ban cars. That's an old tired talking point that has zero relevance, but if it makes you happy and warm to keep using it be my guest.

So.... your solution is, don't get rid of guns, get rid of people. Ok..

Where do you think criminals get guns from? I'm curious to your response to this.

According to the FBI most guns used in crime come from straw purchasers, second in place are stolen guns.

Get rid of people? Yes, that is the solution. What good is getting rid of guns when we give a slap on the hand to criminals who carry them? Get rid of them. Get caught carrying an illegal weapon, a 10 year minimum prison sentence. Get caught with an illegal weapon that was stolen, a 15 year minimum prison sentence. Use a gun in a commission of a crime, a minimum of a 20 year sentence. Shoot or kill a victim in the commission of a crime, automatic death penalty. The list goes on and on. But a harsh enough penalty works every time it's tried.

Getting rid of cars is spot on. If we are going to blame the weapon instead of the individual, what good does that do? An inanimate object doesn't care if you get rid of it. People care if you remove them from society and lock them in a cage where they belong.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

No, technically speaking it's not. But it's the black stock that appeals to the kind of people who have a need to kill. They would be less motivated if they couldn't copy the military's weapon of choice.

There's the same effect on them when they dress up in their camo costumes with military gear hanging off them.

Without both, some of them couldn't become motivated to kill children.

Think it over sassy, the mindset and the motivation of the shooters needs to be understood mor thoroughly. It's understood that the facts are poison to Americans who are born and bred to support their country's wars. Can you be the first one to not fear the conversation?

The black stock appeals to the million of people who purchase them each year.

Without both, some of them couldn't become motivated to kill children.

Pure BS with no foundation in anything even resembling a fact.

The only thing to fear here is the number of idiots purporting to understand what motivates these killers. You certainly don't.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

are you actually trying to claim that deadwood wasnt violent ?

That period lasted less than 30 years and no, The West was not nearly as violent as is portrayed on the big and little screens.

Most people were just living their lives trying to make a better life for their kids than they'd had.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

According to the FBI most guns used in crime come from straw purchasers, second in place are stolen guns.

Get rid of people? Yes, that is the solution. What good is getting rid of guns when we give a slap on the hand to criminals who carry them? Get rid of them. Get caught carrying an illegal weapon, a 10 year minimum prison sentence. Get caught with an illegal weapon that was stolen, a 15 year minimum prison sentence. Use a gun in a commission of a crime, a minimum of a 20 year sentence. Shoot or kill a victim in the commission of a crime, automatic death penalty. The list goes on and on. But a harsh enough penalty works every time it's tried.

Getting rid of cars is spot on. If we are going to blame the weapon instead of the individual, what good does that do? An inanimate object doesn't care if you get rid of it. People care if you remove them from society and lock them in a cage where they belong.

It's the, "If it saves just one life" argument.

Ok, then let's impose a 25mph national speed limit on all highways because we know that deaths increase exponentially from 30mph on up.

 

[krichton]

According to the FBI most guns used in crime come from straw purchasers, second in place are stolen guns.

Get rid of people? Yes, that is the solution. What good is getting rid of guns when we give a slap on the hand to criminals who carry them? Get rid of them. Get caught carrying an illegal weapon, a 10 year minimum prison sentence. Get caught with an illegal weapon that was stolen, a 15 year minimum prison sentence. Use a gun in a commission of a crime, a minimum of a 20 year sentence. Shoot or kill a victim in the commission of a crime, automatic death penalty. The list goes on and on. But a harsh enough penalty works every time it's tried.

Getting rid of cars is spot on. If we are going to blame the weapon instead of the individual, what good does that do? An inanimate object doesn't care if you get rid of it. People care if you remove them from society and lock them in a cage where they belong.

Nope. Only 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. Nice try at disinformation.

Hey, i'm not the one suggesting it, but it seems to make sense, you get rid of ppl and guns pose no threat to anyone, problem solved. After all, guns are more important. We have life sentences in cases of murder. Do you see that as a deterrent to murder in this country? I remember many years ago, a group of black of ppl killed a delivery man for his Chinese food because they were hungry. I guess they didn't have $10 on them. You think them being sent to jail for life deters the next criminal, or the next?

You know what else is an inanimate object? A grenade. An RPG is an inanimate object. Should we allow the sale of these as well using your logic?

 

[BULLDOG]

yeah and they were still the most violent places in the old west ..

The banning of guns was a response to the violence, and it was effective. Gun violence was greatly reduced. They weren't the most violent places after the ban. You should get an adult to read a history book to you every once in awhile.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope. Only 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. Nice try at disinformation.

Hey, i'm not the one suggesting it, but it seems to make sense, you get rid of ppl and guns pose no threat to anyone, problem solved. After all, guns are more important. We have life sentences in cases of murder. Do you see that as a deterrent to murder in this country? I remember many years ago, a group of black of ppl killed a delivery man for his Chinese food because they were hungry. I guess they didn't have $10 on them. You think them being sent to jail for life deters the next criminal, or the next?

You know what else is an inanimate object? A grenade. An RPG is an inanimate object. Should we allow the sale of these as well using your logic?

I stated that the FBI statistics show that stolen guns are secondary to straw purchasers. Therefore straw purchasers should be receiving the longest sentences when a crime is committed by a person with a gun they purchased for a criminal. Murder? Anybody that goes to those extremes are not going to be bothered by life sentences. However if we use the death penalty in irrefutable cases, fast track all appeals to less than six months instead of 20 years, yes, that would be a great deterrent and you'd see murders drop like never before. If we allowed televised executions, it would have an even stronger impact.

Life sentences for crimes committed with a firearm would also be a deterrent. Why would anybody risk going to prison for life for 50 bucks in a cashiers drawer? As long as the criminal didn't hurt or kill anybody with the gun, you'd see how fast armed robberies would decline.

Bottom line is a strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. But when these liberal thresholds give criminals a few months in jail, there is no reason for them not to carry a gun or commit a crime with one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The banning of guns was a response to the violence, and it was effective. Gun violence was greatly reduced. They weren't the most violent places after the ban. You should get an adult to read a history book to you every once in awhile.

Plenty of violent crime still takes place in places that have strong restrictions on guns like Chicago, New York, Washington. So where and when was banning of guns effective and greatly reduced crime?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Nope. Only 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. Nice try at disinformation.

According to what source?

The majority of crimes involving guns are committed with guns that are illegally obtained by the shooter/user.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The banning of guns was a response to the violence, and it was effective. Gun violence was greatly reduced. They weren't the most violent places after the ban. You should get an adult to read a history book to you every once in awhile.

Cite your source for this claim.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I stated that the FBI statistics show that stolen guns are secondary to straw purchasers. Therefore straw purchasers should be receiving the longest sentences when a crime is committed by a person with a gun they purchased for a criminal. Murder? Anybody that goes to those extremes are not going to be bothered by life sentences. However if we use the death penalty in irrefutable cases, fast track all appeals to less than six months instead of 20 years, yes, that would be a great deterrent and you'd see murders drop like never before. If we allowed televised executions, it would have an even stronger impact.

Life sentences for crimes committed with a firearm would also be a deterrent. Why would anybody risk going to prison for life for 50 bucks in a cashiers drawer? As long as the criminal didn't hurt or kill anybody with the gun, you'd see how fast armed robberies would decline.

Bottom line is a strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. But when these liberal thresholds give criminals a few months in jail, there is no reason for them not to carry a gun or commit a crime with one.

They seem to have a real problem with punishing criminals instead of infringing on the rights of the law abiding public.

 

[BULLDOG]

Plenty of violent crime still takes place in places that have strong restrictions on guns like Chicago, New York, Washington. So where and when was banning of guns effective and greatly reduced crime?

Lots of places. The discussion was about Tombstone, and Dodge City, but more recently gun control has been very effective in Great Britan, Australia, Canada, New Zeland Norway and most other major countries. Effective gun control was put in place in each of those countries after mass shooting incidents, and they don't have the problem that we have.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Lots of places. The discussion was about Tombstone, and Dodge City, but more recently gun control has been very effective in Great Britan, Australia, Canada, New Zeland Norway and most other major countries. Effective gun control was put in place in each of those countries after mass shooting incidents, and they don't have the problem that we have.

How many of those countries share an unsecure border with a failed NARCO state with the highest murder rates in the Western Hemisphere?

 

[BULLDOG]

How many of those countries share an unsecure border with a failed NARCO state with the highest murder rates in the Western Hemisphere?

You think all our gun crime is committed by Mexicans? Really?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You think all our gun crime is committed by Mexicans? Really?

Proving yet again you are utterly retarded.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lots of places. The discussion was about Tombstone, and Dodge City, but more recently gun control has been very effective in Great Britan, Australia, Canada, New Zeland Norway and most other major countries. Effective gun control was put in place in each of those countries after mass shooting incidents, and they don't have the problem that we have.

Perhaps, but you are also comparing apples to oranges.

What you are doing is making comparisons between near or absolute single-culture societies to ours. We are the most multi-culturial society on the planet. Without our minorities, our violent crime rate would be very comparable to the nearly all white places you speak of. In the US, 54% of our murders are committed by just 13% of our population which are blacks. Given the fact most murders are by males, most murders are committed by 7 to 8% of our population which are black males.

As we have always said, it's not the weapon, but the people.

In other words you make a law that all people in a middle-class white suburb must have a firearm in the household. Their violent crime statistics will not change. Then make a law that no guns are allowed in a high-crime minority city, their violent crime rate will not change either. They will always find a way to get guns.

In the end, by disarming law abiding citizens, what you end up with is a country where only the criminals and police have the guns.

 

[Vrenn]

are you actually trying to claim that deadwood wasnt violent ?

It was until just after Hickock was murdered. The Community had enough and appointed one of the best Sheriffs in history. One of the things he did was made it illegal for handguns to be possessed on main street whether it's open carried or concealed. Seth Bullock hired probably the meanest law and order deputies ever assembled. It went from a hell raising town to a civilized community almost over night. And no citizen was killed to do it in 1877. The Wild Wild West of Deadwood ended. Before that, there was a homicide every 24 hours in Deadwood.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You think all our gun crime is committed by Mexicans? Really?

That's precisely not what he said.