What is the real reason that our Government is making gun laws stricter and stricter?

[Brain357]

Concealed carry up. Violent crime up.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

2 up... After going down while concealed carry was heading up for 8 straight years.

You can't have murder rates going up AND down as concealed carry only goes up and say it is due to concealed carry. Do you understand this?

Again and again you are picking and choosing WHEN the numbers work for you and then sticking your head in the ground and ignoring the entire picture.

That's when things don't work. When you ignore half the information, only listen to the information you want to hear, and make a decision based on that.

I'm not saying there are examples of gun laws correlating to lower murders. That happens and you've shown it. What I am not saying is you can't continue to stick your head in the sand when gun laws don't correlate to fewer murders. Because that proves that there isn't even correlation which means there's no way you can have a cause and effect.

I'm not arguing your points. But if you want to prove a cause and effect relationship, time and again you can't have the opposite coming true.

Again, when compared to other countries that are similarly stable we have much more death.

 

[Crixus]

We can't have Washington DC ban guns... completely unless they were disassembled or trigger locked. And watch the murders by guns nearly triple.

We can't have Great Britian implement gun restrictions and see an 89% spike in gun crimes in the 10 years after the ban.

We can't have a 3.6% decrease in police killings for every 1% increase in gun ownership.

We can't have the states that impose concealed carry bans having higher police murder rates than those that do not (a reason why nearly 90% of police are against bans on open carry).

we can't watch gun ownership increase 53% from 1993-2003 in the US and see gun violence DECREASE by 50% in that same time period.

If it's gun ban, gun ban works, proliferation increases. But time and again we see it's not working that way. So why keep throwing money at that same thing over. and over. and over. and over. And keep scratching our heads and saying "why isn't it working this time?"

How many of your false claims do I have to shut down? You just keep bouncing all over the place making one dumb claim after another. Remember the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control? Remember how we got background checks? Yeah and crime decreased.

well you can get started shutting them down and stop spewing JOEB's talking points. Mass shootings are a relatively new thing that your poiltitions use to get votes. Mass killings though, they happen all over the world. There is also the fact that you racist ignore a mass shooting every weekend in THIS country. Na, you posted more talking points. you diddnt shut down shit.

 

[Brain357]

We can't have Washington DC ban guns... completely unless they were disassembled or trigger locked. And watch the murders by guns nearly triple.

We can't have Great Britian implement gun restrictions and see an 89% spike in gun crimes in the 10 years after the ban.

We can't have a 3.6% decrease in police killings for every 1% increase in gun ownership.

We can't have the states that impose concealed carry bans having higher police murder rates than those that do not (a reason why nearly 90% of police are against bans on open carry).

we can't watch gun ownership increase 53% from 1993-2003 in the US and see gun violence DECREASE by 50% in that same time period.

If it's gun ban, gun ban works, proliferation increases. But time and again we see it's not working that way. So why keep throwing money at that same thing over. and over. and over. and over. And keep scratching our heads and saying "why isn't it working this time?"

How many of your false claims do I have to shut down? You just keep bouncing all over the place making one dumb claim after another. Remember the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control? Remember how we got background checks? Yeah and crime decreased.

well you can get started shutting them down and stop spewing JOEB's talking points. Mass shootings are a relatively new thing that your poiltitions use to get votes. Mass killings though, they happen all over the world. There is also the fact that you racist ignore a mass shooting every weekend in THIS country. Na, you posted more talking points. you diddnt shut down shit.

Yes we have shootings of every kind here. Mass killings, cop killings, toddlers shooting people, road rage shootings. Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN

 

[Slash]

Again, when compared to other countries that are similarly stable we have much more death.

Yes. we fit in that more guns = more death. But time and again we have 1st world countries that don't match up there. We have 3rd world countries that don't match up there. I've given you plenty of evidence of countries with 3-4 times more gun ownership than others and lower murder rates.

For you to prove correlation, it can't only work SOME of the time. Do you get that? If I flip a coin and get heads, that doesn't mean I've proven that every time I flip a coin, I will get heads.

In the gun proliferation debate, tails keeps showing up. And it CAN"T show up for there to be cause and effect there.

 

[MaryL]

We can't have Washington DC ban guns... completely unless they were disassembled or trigger locked. And watch the murders by guns nearly triple.

We can't have Great Britian implement gun restrictions and see an 89% spike in gun crimes in the 10 years after the ban.

We can't have a 3.6% decrease in police killings for every 1% increase in gun ownership.

We can't have the states that impose concealed carry bans having higher police murder rates than those that do not (a reason why nearly 90% of police are against bans on open carry).

we can't watch gun ownership increase 53% from 1993-2003 in the US and see gun violence DECREASE by 50% in that same time period.

If it's gun ban, gun ban works, proliferation increases. But time and again we see it's not working that way. So why keep throwing money at that same thing over. and over. and over. and over. And keep scratching our heads and saying "why isn't it working this time?"

How many of your false claims do I have to shut down? You just keep bouncing all over the place making one dumb claim after another. Remember the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control? Remember how we got background checks? Yeah and crime decreased.

well you can get started shutting them down and stop spewing JOEB's talking points. Mass shootings are a relatively new thing that your poiltitions use to get votes. Mass killings though, they happen all over the world. There is also the fact that you racist ignore a mass shooting every weekend in THIS country. Na, you posted more talking points. you diddnt shut down shit.

Yes we have shootings of every kind here. Mass killings, cop killings, toddlers shooting people, road rage shootings. Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN

And yet, given all that, the OP thinks we have too many gun control laws. We have a major disconnect here on facts and situational awareness.

 

[Brain357]

Where else do they have problems like these?
Guns are now the third leading cause of death for U.S. children

 

[Brain357]

Again, when compared to other countries that are similarly stable we have much more death.

Yes. we fit in that more guns = more death. But time and again we have 1st world countries that don't match up there. We have 3rd world countries that don't match up there. I've given you plenty of evidence of countries with 3-4 times more gun ownership than others and lower murder rates.

For you to prove correlation, it can't only work SOME of the time. Do you get that? If I flip a coin and get heads, that doesn't mean I've proven that every time I flip a coin, I will get heads.

In the gun proliferation debate, tails keeps showing up. And it CAN"T show up for there to be cause and effect there.

Like I said, similarly stable. None of your examples are comparing similar countries.

 

[Brain357]

Again, when compared to other countries that are similarly stable we have much more death.

Yes. we fit in that more guns = more death. But time and again we have 1st world countries that don't match up there. We have 3rd world countries that don't match up there. I've given you plenty of evidence of countries with 3-4 times more gun ownership than others and lower murder rates.

For you to prove correlation, it can't only work SOME of the time. Do you get that? If I flip a coin and get heads, that doesn't mean I've proven that every time I flip a coin, I will get heads.

In the gun proliferation debate, tails keeps showing up. And it CAN"T show up for there to be cause and effect there.

Lets compare Scandinavian countries. Finland has the most guns and most lax gun laws.
Intentional Homicide rate:
Finland: 1.60
Sweden: 1.15
Norway: .56
Denmark: .99

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here is what is happening with the most concealed carry ever:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Meanwhile New York city has maintained strict gun laws.
New York City Had Record-Low Crime Rate in 2016

So how can you attribute that to guns? Don't you remember a thing called the Ferguson Effect? That had more to do with it than the amount of guns.

View attachment 161362

The Ferguson effect is a direct result of too many guns. Too many innocent people are getting shot by police because they themselves are getting shot at a rate not seen in any other country. Due to all these shootings we have lots of unrest which is leading to more crime. The root cause goes back to guns.

So what do you want to do, disarm the cops? The Ferguson Effect is because police officers shot unarmed black men. It had nothing to do with the amount of guns we have. It has to do with the media sensationalizing these tragic events.

It has everything to do with the amount of guns we have. Our police shoot way more people than they should. They do that because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of those things happen in countries with strong gun control.
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

Because of this we have lots of unrest which is increasing crime.

So you take away guns from law abiding people and the criminals will still have them. Nothing is solved and nothing changes as far as the police are concerned.

 

[Slash]

Like I said, similarly stable. None of your examples are comparing similar countries.

Yes they are. I gave you first world countries with high GDP, low gun ownership and high murder rate.

I gave you first world countries with high GDP and high gun ownership with low murder rate

I gave you 3rd world countries with high ownership and low murder rate
I gave you 3rd world countries with low ownership and high murder rate.


Norway. 9th in gun ownership 30.6 per 100k. 206th (out of 219 listed countries) in murder rate .56 per 100k.

Belgium 17.5 per 100k guns, 1.99 per 100k murder rate. Nearly half the guns. Nearly 4 times the murder rate. Both Western European countries in the EU.

You cant have a swing like that. 800% swing there, and say its cause and effect. Those things just can't exist.

You can't say it's concealed carry and see gun murders drop for 8 years while concealed carry increases.

These are basic things. And you want to bury your head in the dirt on them and pretend they don't exist. I am FULLY admitting your numbers exist. The thing is the ONLY way they can prove that there is cause and effect is if they exist in a vacuum without contradictory numbers. Which they don't.

 

[Slash]

Where else do they have problems like these?
Guns are now the third leading cause of death for U.S. children

Yes which is why I am so strongly opposed to just doing the same dumb thing again and again with some sort of blanket ban or banning the "scary guns". We've tried that on state and city levels and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And our idiot politicians on both sides are fighting on this focusing on the guns and not the socioeconomic issues that may be at fault.

Personally I am 1000% for making it impossible for violent offenders to get guns. And massive massive fines and punishments for those that are found with them. I am 1000% for people who accidently discharge weapons, who are negligent with weapons to be banned from owning and again, massive fines.

I am for those with mental illnesses to be banned from owning them (as long as we have a panel that agrees, rather than just relying on a single doctor).

I am fine with mandating smart guns that only lets an authorized user shoot them if we can find a way that they work every single time without fail for the user and never for anyone else.

But these blanket bans? Sure the "assault rifle" looks scary. But rifles as a whole according to the last year of FBI data accounted for 248 murders. Handguns accounted for over 5500. Rifles fell behind Shotguns as the weapon of choice. Behind Knives. Behind hammers. Behind fists. And the AR's are only a portion of the rifle group.

If you want to save lives. Not make a political statement, but keep American's alive, banning legs on beds and bunk beds would be more effective than banning AR's (80% more american's killed falling out of bed than are murdered by all types of rifles).

But it's not about saving lives. It's about picking something that draws a primal fear. Get that AR out there, show how it looks scary. Granted it's not the weapon of choice, but hey, this isn't about effectively limiting weapons or reducing murders, it's about making people "feel safer".

That's why I hate outright bans. They don't work, we see that with drugs, illegal immigrants, alcohol, guns... they don't work.

 

[Brain357]

Here is what is happening with the most concealed carry ever:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Meanwhile New York city has maintained strict gun laws.
New York City Had Record-Low Crime Rate in 2016

So how can you attribute that to guns? Don't you remember a thing called the Ferguson Effect? That had more to do with it than the amount of guns.

View attachment 161362

The Ferguson effect is a direct result of too many guns. Too many innocent people are getting shot by police because they themselves are getting shot at a rate not seen in any other country. Due to all these shootings we have lots of unrest which is leading to more crime. The root cause goes back to guns.

So what do you want to do, disarm the cops? The Ferguson Effect is because police officers shot unarmed black men. It had nothing to do with the amount of guns we have. It has to do with the media sensationalizing these tragic events.

It has everything to do with the amount of guns we have. Our police shoot way more people than they should. They do that because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of those things happen in countries with strong gun control.
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

Because of this we have lots of unrest which is increasing crime.

So you take away guns from law abiding people and the criminals will still have them. Nothing is solved and nothing changes as far as the police are concerned.

Criminals don't have them in countries with strong gun control. They are rare.

 

[Brain357]

Like I said, similarly stable. None of your examples are comparing similar countries.

Yes they are. I gave you first world countries with high GDP, low gun ownership and high murder rate.

I gave you first world countries with high GDP and high gun ownership with low murder rate

I gave you 3rd world countries with high ownership and low murder rate
I gave you 3rd world countries with low ownership and high murder rate.


Norway. 9th in gun ownership 30.6 per 100k. 206th (out of 219 listed countries) in murder rate .56 per 100k.

Belgium 17.5 per 100k guns, 1.99 per 100k murder rate. Nearly half the guns. Nearly 4 times the murder rate. Both Western European countries in the EU.

You cant have a swing like that. 800% swing there, and say its cause and effect. Those things just can't exist.

You can't say it's concealed carry and see gun murders drop for 8 years while concealed carry increases.

These are basic things. And you want to bury your head in the dirt on them and pretend they don't exist. I am FULLY admitting your numbers exist. The thing is the ONLY way they can prove that there is cause and effect is if they exist in a vacuum without contradictory numbers. Which they don't.

You are only looking at ownership and not actual gun laws.

Again, we have all sorts of problems very unique to the US because of our lack of gun control. Mass shootings, toddler shootings, cop shootings...

 

[Brain357]

Where else do they have problems like these?
Guns are now the third leading cause of death for U.S. children

Yes which is why I am so strongly opposed to just doing the same dumb thing again and again with some sort of blanket ban or banning the "scary guns". We've tried that on state and city levels and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And our idiot politicians on both sides are fighting on this focusing on the guns and not the socioeconomic issues that may be at fault.

Personally I am 1000% for making it impossible for violent offenders to get guns. And massive massive fines and punishments for those that are found with them. I am 1000% for people who accidently discharge weapons, who are negligent with weapons to be banned from owning and again, massive fines.

I am for those with mental illnesses to be banned from owning them (as long as we have a panel that agrees, rather than just relying on a single doctor).

I am fine with mandating smart guns that only lets an authorized user shoot them if we can find a way that they work every single time without fail for the user and never for anyone else.

But these blanket bans? Sure the "assault rifle" looks scary. But rifles as a whole according to the last year of FBI data accounted for 248 murders. Handguns accounted for over 5500. Rifles fell behind Shotguns as the weapon of choice. Behind Knives. Behind hammers. Behind fists. And the AR's are only a portion of the rifle group.

If you want to save lives. Not make a political statement, but keep American's alive, banning legs on beds and bunk beds would be more effective than banning AR's (80% more american's killed falling out of bed than are murdered by all types of rifles).

But it's not about saving lives. It's about picking something that draws a primal fear. Get that AR out there, show how it looks scary. Granted it's not the weapon of choice, but hey, this isn't about effectively limiting weapons or reducing murders, it's about making people "feel safer".

That's why I hate outright bans. They don't work, we see that with drugs, illegal immigrants, alcohol, guns... they don't work.

It's not that they look scary, they are scary. Orlando had an armed off duty cop on duty when the shooter started. Yet even with police on the scene at the start of the shooting 49 people died because he had so much firepower. And look at all the carnage in Vegas. We heavily regulate machine guns because of the killing power and they are very rare in crime. The same should be done with semi auto rifles with high capacity magazines.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So how can you attribute that to guns? Don't you remember a thing called the Ferguson Effect? That had more to do with it than the amount of guns.

View attachment 161362

The Ferguson effect is a direct result of too many guns. Too many innocent people are getting shot by police because they themselves are getting shot at a rate not seen in any other country. Due to all these shootings we have lots of unrest which is leading to more crime. The root cause goes back to guns.

So what do you want to do, disarm the cops? The Ferguson Effect is because police officers shot unarmed black men. It had nothing to do with the amount of guns we have. It has to do with the media sensationalizing these tragic events.

It has everything to do with the amount of guns we have. Our police shoot way more people than they should. They do that because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of those things happen in countries with strong gun control.
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

Because of this we have lots of unrest which is increasing crime.

So you take away guns from law abiding people and the criminals will still have them. Nothing is solved and nothing changes as far as the police are concerned.

Criminals don't have them in countries with strong gun control. They are rare.

They don't have the narcotics we do either, but we have plenty of them.

 

[Brain357]

The Ferguson effect is a direct result of too many guns. Too many innocent people are getting shot by police because they themselves are getting shot at a rate not seen in any other country. Due to all these shootings we have lots of unrest which is leading to more crime. The root cause goes back to guns.

So what do you want to do, disarm the cops? The Ferguson Effect is because police officers shot unarmed black men. It had nothing to do with the amount of guns we have. It has to do with the media sensationalizing these tragic events.

It has everything to do with the amount of guns we have. Our police shoot way more people than they should. They do that because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of those things happen in countries with strong gun control.
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

Because of this we have lots of unrest which is increasing crime.

So you take away guns from law abiding people and the criminals will still have them. Nothing is solved and nothing changes as far as the police are concerned.

Criminals don't have them in countries with strong gun control. They are rare.

They don't have the narcotics we do either, but we have plenty of them.

Link?

 

[Flopper]

Only in the US are police regularly shot and killed.
Warrant issued for suspect in connection with fatal shooting of New Kensington police officer

Last year 140 policemen died in line of duty in the US. 32 died in the UK over the last 20 years. A police in the US is about 80 times more likely to die in the line of duty than a policemen in the UK.

Between 50 and 60 policemen die each from gunshot wounds. In the UK 34 policemen have die from gunshot wounds in the last 50 years.

List of British police officers killed in the line of duty - Wikipedia
Report: Number Of Police Officers Killed Spikes In 2014

 

[ThatDude30]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
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.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

The United States is considered a dangerous country. Making laws harder for the law abiding citizen, is only making them more vulnerable to violent crime. Law abiding citizen is going to abide the law no matter what it is. If the government says you can not carry a gun on your person at anytime, what do you think the law abiding citizen will do? Not carry a gun. What do you think the criminal will do? If they want to carry a gun there going to carry a gun. Then the criminals will know that there will be less of a chance of a person carrying a gun. It will be open season on law abiding citizens. If its harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, what makes you think a criminal that may never be able to purchase legally, will not be able to obtain one? You can get guns on the streets for half the price they cost in a store. You can get a gun on the streets just like that.

Stricter gun laws will not decrease crime. Stricter gun laws will increase crime.
Stricter gun laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals. Stricter gun laws will not get all the guns of the street.

How do they think stricter gun laws will decrease crime? I wish someone could explain that, one who thinks crime will decrease with stricter gun laws.

How to decrease gun violence? Make the penalties and punishments more harsh and instead on focusing on guns, focus on fixing Americas Poverty Problem. If Americas poverty issue improves and start to decrease the amount of people who suffer from poor conditions, I'm pretty positive that all crime would decrease. Instead of throwing away insane amounts of money, as the government does every year, how bout putting money into rebuilding America. develop programs to clean up the streets and demolish or rebuild abandon homes. Turn empty lots into community gardens. Provide Educational programs for kids in crime riddled neighborhoods. Start a program where funds are available to have odd jobs every day that people without can participate if they want and get paid.

The government can throw away hundreds of millions of dollars every year. They can send supplies, food, medical to other countries in need all while neglecting their own people. They will help a foreign country who has never did a thing for this country, before trying to fix or help the homeless and poverty.

 

[Brain357]

 

[BULLDOG]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
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.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

What's wrong? You get one question and then weasel out to start another thread? I thought you might be more than the average coward RWNJ. I guess not.

He just proves the point that the average IQ for a gun nut is 70.

Funny, mine was tested at 135 in the late 90's.

That you furby?