Another Day, Another Shooting
#61
(01-09-2013, 03:08 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 03:03 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:58 PM)bbqboy Wrote: how long before boy enters the mass murderer ranks?

I'm pretty sure you and ponder will beat him to anything like that. You know, murder suicide.

Right. The ones here that aren't brandishing weapons are the real dangers. Ninja
[Image: 320969_10151215363796275_1420123781_n.jpg]

Weapons or drugs.Ninja
Reply
#62
(01-09-2013, 03:04 PM)bbqboy Wrote: Well, we know OL doesn't pay for healthcare for boy(or anyone). He already stated that's why he's freeloading off of us in Oregon, as compared to Nevada, when men are men and mass murderers are celebrated.

No, we pay for the Special Education system. I never said anything about medical. I wonder if clone will report you for trolling.
Reply
#63
(01-09-2013, 03:08 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 03:03 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:58 PM)bbqboy Wrote: how long before boy enters the mass murderer ranks?

I'm pretty sure you and ponder will beat him to anything like that. You know, murder suicide.

Right. The ones here that aren't brandishing weapons are the real dangers. Ninja

The ones that self diagnose as well as the ones that are complaining about how shitty their life is and contemplate suicide are the dangerous ones.
Reply
#64
I'm dangerous? Cool. No one's ever given me that compliment before.
Reply
#65
(01-09-2013, 03:07 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:54 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Yep, let's make it about an inanimate object willie, a certain "style" as painted by the leftists and the Obamamedia complex. You guys worship the ground a gun is used on, don't you. It's like a badge of honor to you guys to pile up dead bodies, whether child or adult, and stand on top to push the anti gun agenda. I believe there is another common tie to the killings besides a gun, anti psychotic medications, or psychotropic drugs. Bet, since we now have Obamacare, psychotropics are the order of the day. Try a few willie, they work wonders for the other killers.

http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Quote:School Shooters Under the Influence of Psychiatric Drugs

Fact: Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile school shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.

Fact: At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.) The most important fact about this list, is that these are only the shooters where the information about their psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred July 20, 2012, at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was seeing psychiatrist Lynne Fenton, no mention has been made of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking. Also note that all these mass shootings didn’t just occur in the United States.

...

Fact: Mass murders are a tiny percentage of the total number of firearm related deaths, even discounting suicides.

And of those mass murders, the so called "assault weapons" are about 1-2%. Now you sound like you support less gun control, thanks for your support. Since they make up such a small percentage, why penalize every honest citizen for a few fuck ups?
Reply
#66
Shouldn't we use the same standard concerning your milking of our limited health care?
Reply
#67
Fact: Everyday more people die from car accidents then do in gun related accidents in a given week
Fact: In a given year 100,000+ die from obesity and 400,000 people die from cigarette related issues-- and both cost more to US taxpayers then gun related incidents.
Fact: The AR15 model was sold legally through out the assault weapons ban that supposably kept us safer and no one knows how many are in the US because they have been available so long-- it's roughly 2.5 million in civilian hands. Even if you consider the fact that it has been involved in 3 mass shootings this year-- that's roughly 50 casualities to 2.5 million owners. Statistically that's microscopic.

So asking legal, law abiding US citizens to forfeit a Constitional right based on a media created sensation seems a bit excessive. A bit like getting rid of the 4th ammendment and no longer requiring warrants to search private property or taking away a women's right to vote because you think they vote too liberal. Before any changes are to the Constitution there needs to be a very high need. You could save more lives banning cigarettes or even alcohol, but hey.
Reply
#68
We should ban eating in cars.
Reply
#69
(01-09-2013, 02:34 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:28 PM)reelo Wrote: Nope, pointing out that banning and restrictions really doesn't do much for the illegal factor. We know this from areas- like Chicago- that have very tight legislation in place and we all know this from experience with the drug wars. Can anyone honestly say that banning meth or even pot has kept it out of this country? Has it stopped meth deaths? injuries? All it's done is create super drug gangs and helped cheapen lives. But hey, seeing how succesful we've been keeping drugs and crime from crossing our borders I'm sure keeping guns from crossing the border will be a highly succesful endeavor.

Forgive me here, but as a law abiding citizen here there are hundreds of things more likely to hurt me and my family then guns and- quite frankly- I don't trust criminals to just hand over their weapons or to not acquire new ones.

Right now the average response time of a code 3 call in my area of Sac is about 5 minutes from the time of call. Is there anyone out there that believes that when a criminal breaks into an occupied house they don't mean to do any harm? So if you are home one night and hear someone breaking in yes you immediately call 911-- but what happens in the next 5 minutes?


It amazes me how so many people take 'gun control' to mean 'we want to completely remove your right to keep and bear arms'.

So, under the tougher gun control laws, you take your legally owned and registered gun, which you have a license to own and have undergone training and certification for, and protect yourself with it. Simple as that.

Simple as that? You would be creating a massive government bureaucracy to force legal gun owners to obey NEW laws when the REAL problem is not legal gun owners at all:wacko:
You act as if this is a solution for our high amount of gun deaths in this country. When the truth is that criminals with guns are responsible the vast majority of these deaths

You come up with this after a shooting that was committed with a legally owned gun that was stolen by a mentally ill person.

You have said yourself that YOU want restrictions on how many guns people can own and how much ammunition.
IMO that is banning a person from being able to own something.

As far as the assault weapons, many many people do want them banned.
Plus right now a great many people want to ban the sale of semi automatic weapons.

I see a lot of emotional outrage over a tiny fraction of gun deaths in this country because they were children.
But I don't see a logical well reasoned attack on the real reason we have so many deaths from guns in this country.
Reply
#70
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/natio...1082.story

Quote:2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say

As Howard B. Unruh barricaded himself in his home against the police -- after finally running out of ammunition -- he got a call from an assistant city editor at a local newspaper who had looked up his phone number.

“Why are you killing people?” asked the editor, Philip W. Buxton.

“I don’t know,” Unruh replied. “I can’t answer that yet. I’ll have to talk to you later. I’m too busy now.”

It was 1949 in Camden, N.J., and Unruh had just killed 12 people and injured four others with a Luger pistol, including women and children.

Although some indications suggest the American public has reached a breaking point after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting -- yet another tragic mass shooting in a particularly tragic year -- such attacks have long been a part of American history, and some experts say they are happening not much more often than usual.

"There is one not-so-tiny flaw in all of these theories for the increase in mass shootings," James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote for Boston.com in August. "And that is that mass shootings have not increased in number or in overall body count, at least not over the past several decades."

Fox cited a particularly broad set of FBI and police data that counted shootings between 1980 and 2010 in which four or more people were killed: The average pace was about 20 mass murders per year, with a death toll of about 100. Casualty counts fluctuated wildly -- some years would have almost 125 dead, but then be followed by a year with fewer than 50 mass shooting fatalities. Far steadier was the number of attacks, which usually stayed at fewer than 25 per year.

This year has been especially bloody, though. According to a running tally by Mother Jones magazine, whose counts slightly differ -- the magazine excluded robberies and gang violence, to some criticism, and limited the tally to public attacks -- 2012 has been the deadliest year for mass shootings since 1982 by far, with almost 80 dead.

The overall number of casualties, when injuries are included, made 2012 almost twice as bloody as the next-worst years: 1999 and 2007, when massacres at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., and Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Va., respectively, inflated the numbers.

Mass shootings make up only a small fraction of the country's overall gun crime. Between 2007 and 2011 -- which saw an almost unprecedented drop in violent crime -- the U.S. experienced an average of 13,700 homicides, with guns responsible for 67% of the killing, according to the FBI's crime reports.

But experts say it's the spectacular nature of the attacks that give public mass shootings such impact beyond the affected communities, with intense media coverage lending extra piquance: five or six or even seven attacks in one year may not be statistically significant, but they're emotionally resonant.

"What we’ve seen after Aurora and what we’ve seen after Newtown is kind of the typical response that we’ve seen over the last 50 years following high-profile mass public shootings," said Grant Duwe, a criminologist for the Minnesota Department of Corrections who's written a book on the history of mass murders since 1900.

Duwe has counted 21 mass shootings between 1900 and 1966, which was the year Charles Whitman took to the University of Texas tower in Austin, part of a rampage that killed 15 people, including a pregnant woman. Two weeks before, Richard Speck had killed eight student nurses at the University of Chicago.

Both of these cases tripped off an emotional maelstrom that marked a new era of public killings in the United States; the two attacks became central points of reference in public debate and started a period when guns became more prominent weapons for such killings.

“We had mass public shootings before 1966, but the frequency with which those cases occurred is less than what we’ve observed since the mid-1960s," Duwe said.

The country saw an increase in mass public killings during the 1980s and '90s, but Duwe's tallies showed that mass shootings had decreased since then. The 26 public shooting massacres he tallied between 2000 and 2009 were significantly down from the 43 cases he counted in the 1990s. (Duwe counts shootings in public places that result in four or more dead, but he excludes robberies and gang violence.)

But Duwe acknowledged that there seemed to be more emotional resonance behind the Newtown, Conn., school attack compared with even the recent massacres in Tuscon, Ariz., and Aurora, Colo.

"What makes the Newtown mass shooting different qualitatively is that we do have a significant loss of young, innocent, precious lives," he said. "That may pack enough emotional power to bring about reinstatement of, say, the assault weapons ban."
Reply
#71
(01-09-2013, 03:51 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/natio...1082.story

Quote:2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say

As Howard B. Unruh barricaded himself in his home against the police -- after finally running out of ammunition -- he got a call from an assistant city editor at a local newspaper who had looked up his phone number.

“Why are you killing people?” asked the editor, Philip W. Buxton.

“I don’t know,” Unruh replied. “I can’t answer that yet. I’ll have to talk to you later. I’m too busy now.”

It was 1949 in Camden, N.J., and Unruh had just killed 12 people and injured four others with a Luger pistol, including women and children.

Although some indications suggest the American public has reached a breaking point after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting -- yet another tragic mass shooting in a particularly tragic year -- such attacks have long been a part of American history, and some experts say they are happening not much more often than usual.

"There is one not-so-tiny flaw in all of these theories for the increase in mass shootings," James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote for Boston.com in August. "And that is that mass shootings have not increased in number or in overall body count, at least not over the past several decades."

Fox cited a particularly broad set of FBI and police data that counted shootings between 1980 and 2010 in which four or more people were killed: The average pace was about 20 mass murders per year, with a death toll of about 100. Casualty counts fluctuated wildly -- some years would have almost 125 dead, but then be followed by a year with fewer than 50 mass shooting fatalities. Far steadier was the number of attacks, which usually stayed at fewer than 25 per year.

This year has been especially bloody, though. According to a running tally by Mother Jones magazine, whose counts slightly differ -- the magazine excluded robberies and gang violence, to some criticism, and limited the tally to public attacks -- 2012 has been the deadliest year for mass shootings since 1982 by far, with almost 80 dead.

The overall number of casualties, when injuries are included, made 2012 almost twice as bloody as the next-worst years: 1999 and 2007, when massacres at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., and Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Va., respectively, inflated the numbers.

Mass shootings make up only a small fraction of the country's overall gun crime. Between 2007 and 2011 -- which saw an almost unprecedented drop in violent crime -- the U.S. experienced an average of 13,700 homicides, with guns responsible for 67% of the killing, according to the FBI's crime reports.

But experts say it's the spectacular nature of the attacks that give public mass shootings such impact beyond the affected communities, with intense media coverage lending extra piquance: five or six or even seven attacks in one year may not be statistically significant, but they're emotionally resonant.

"What we’ve seen after Aurora and what we’ve seen after Newtown is kind of the typical response that we’ve seen over the last 50 years following high-profile mass public shootings," said Grant Duwe, a criminologist for the Minnesota Department of Corrections who's written a book on the history of mass murders since 1900.

Duwe has counted 21 mass shootings between 1900 and 1966, which was the year Charles Whitman took to the University of Texas tower in Austin, part of a rampage that killed 15 people, including a pregnant woman. Two weeks before, Richard Speck had killed eight student nurses at the University of Chicago.

Both of these cases tripped off an emotional maelstrom that marked a new era of public killings in the United States; the two attacks became central points of reference in public debate and started a period when guns became more prominent weapons for such killings.

“We had mass public shootings before 1966, but the frequency with which those cases occurred is less than what we’ve observed since the mid-1960s," Duwe said.

The country saw an increase in mass public killings during the 1980s and '90s, but Duwe's tallies showed that mass shootings had decreased since then. The 26 public shooting massacres he tallied between 2000 and 2009 were significantly down from the 43 cases he counted in the 1990s. (Duwe counts shootings in public places that result in four or more dead, but he excludes robberies and gang violence.)

But Duwe acknowledged that there seemed to be more emotional resonance behind the Newtown, Conn., school attack compared with even the recent massacres in Tuscon, Ariz., and Aurora, Colo.

"What makes the Newtown mass shooting different qualitatively is that we do have a significant loss of young, innocent, precious lives," he said. "That may pack enough emotional power to bring about reinstatement of, say, the assault weapons ban."

This is for the ones who don't want to read the whole article.


And that is that mass shootings have not increased in number or in overall body count, at least not over the past several decades."
Reply
#72
(01-09-2013, 03:31 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: I wonder if clone will report you for trolling.

Clone hasn't reported anyone for trolling...but she should report you for making up lies to make her look 'bad'. Mad
Reply
#73
(01-09-2013, 03:35 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 03:07 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:54 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Yep, let's make it about an inanimate object willie, a certain "style" as painted by the leftists and the Obamamedia complex. You guys worship the ground a gun is used on, don't you. It's like a badge of honor to you guys to pile up dead bodies, whether child or adult, and stand on top to push the anti gun agenda. I believe there is another common tie to the killings besides a gun, anti psychotic medications, or psychotropic drugs. Bet, since we now have Obamacare, psychotropics are the order of the day. Try a few willie, they work wonders for the other killers.

http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Quote:School Shooters Under the Influence of Psychiatric Drugs

Fact: Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile school shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.

Fact: At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.) The most important fact about this list, is that these are only the shooters where the information about their psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred July 20, 2012, at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was seeing psychiatrist Lynne Fenton, no mention has been made of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking. Also note that all these mass shootings didn’t just occur in the United States.

...

Fact: Mass murders are a tiny percentage of the total number of firearm related deaths, even discounting suicides.

And of those mass murders, the so called "assault weapons" are about 1-2%. Now you sound like you support less gun control, thanks for your support. Since they make up such a small percentage, why penalize every honest citizen for a few fuck ups?


The more potentially dangerous the weapon, the harder I want it to be for people to get ahold of it.

Quit lumping me in with the people who are merely calling for a ban on assault weapons. Read my suggested gun control legislation and actually comment on it. Maybe even tell me whether you would support it, since you haven't even done that, when directly asked.

Here's the question again: Would you support federal gun legislation that did not take away the right to keep and bear arms, but instead required licensing, registration, and training, as well as stringent safety requirements for storing firearms that are not under your direct supervision, under which purposefully breaking any of these laws would be considered a felony and could result in the suspension of your license and jail time at a minimum?
Reply
#74
(01-09-2013, 03:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:34 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:28 PM)reelo Wrote: Nope, pointing out that banning and restrictions really doesn't do much for the illegal factor. We know this from areas- like Chicago- that have very tight legislation in place and we all know this from experience with the drug wars. Can anyone honestly say that banning meth or even pot has kept it out of this country? Has it stopped meth deaths? injuries? All it's done is create super drug gangs and helped cheapen lives. But hey, seeing how succesful we've been keeping drugs and crime from crossing our borders I'm sure keeping guns from crossing the border will be a highly succesful endeavor.

Forgive me here, but as a law abiding citizen here there are hundreds of things more likely to hurt me and my family then guns and- quite frankly- I don't trust criminals to just hand over their weapons or to not acquire new ones.

Right now the average response time of a code 3 call in my area of Sac is about 5 minutes from the time of call. Is there anyone out there that believes that when a criminal breaks into an occupied house they don't mean to do any harm? So if you are home one night and hear someone breaking in yes you immediately call 911-- but what happens in the next 5 minutes?


It amazes me how so many people take 'gun control' to mean 'we want to completely remove your right to keep and bear arms'.

So, under the tougher gun control laws, you take your legally owned and registered gun, which you have a license to own and have undergone training and certification for, and protect yourself with it. Simple as that.

Simple as that? You would be creating a massive government bureaucracy to force legal gun owners to obey NEW laws when the REAL problem is not legal gun owners at all:wacko:
You act as if this is a solution for our high amount of gun deaths in this country. When the truth is that criminals with guns are responsible the vast majority of these deaths

You come up with this after a shooting that was committed with a legally owned gun that was stolen by a mentally ill person.

You have said yourself that YOU want restrictions on how many guns people can own and how much ammunition.
IMO that is banning a person from being able to own something.

As far as the assault weapons, many many people do want them banned.
Plus right now a great many people want to ban the sale of semi automatic weapons.

I see a lot of emotional outrage over a tiny fraction of gun deaths in this country because they were children.
But I don't see a logical well reasoned attack on the real reason we have so many deaths from guns in this country.

How many gun crimes are committed in countries where guns are tightly restricted? Very, very few. Why? Because there are so few guns available that even the criminals can't get ahold of them easily.

I also want restrictions on how guns can be stored when not under the owner's direct supervision. I also want people to be severely punished for purposefully breaking any of the gun laws. I also want the entire country to follow the same gun laws so that you can't just sneak some guns in from one jurisdiction where they're legal into another where they're not. I want these regulations and the enforcement to be in place for decades so that we can actually gain benefit from them, instead of expecting an instant fix.

And please tell me how my telling you that you can own some guns and some ammunition is banning you from owning guns and ammunition.
Reply
#75
(01-09-2013, 03:59 PM)Clone Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 03:31 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: I wonder if clone will report you for trolling.

Clone hasn't reported anyone for trolling...but she should report you for making up lies to make her look 'bad'. Mad

So now asking a question is a lie?Blink
Reply
#76
(01-09-2013, 04:13 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 03:35 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 03:07 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-09-2013, 02:54 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Yep, let's make it about an inanimate object willie, a certain "style" as painted by the leftists and the Obamamedia complex. You guys worship the ground a gun is used on, don't you. It's like a badge of honor to you guys to pile up dead bodies, whether child or adult, and stand on top to push the anti gun agenda. I believe there is another common tie to the killings besides a gun, anti psychotic medications, or psychotropic drugs. Bet, since we now have Obamacare, psychotropics are the order of the day. Try a few willie, they work wonders for the other killers.

http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Quote:School Shooters Under the Influence of Psychiatric Drugs

Fact: Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile school shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.

Fact: At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.) The most important fact about this list, is that these are only the shooters where the information about their psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred July 20, 2012, at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was seeing psychiatrist Lynne Fenton, no mention has been made of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking. Also note that all these mass shootings didn’t just occur in the United States.

...

Fact: Mass murders are a tiny percentage of the total number of firearm related deaths, even discounting suicides.

And of those mass murders, the so called "assault weapons" are about 1-2%. Now you sound like you support less gun control, thanks for your support. Since they make up such a small percentage, why penalize every honest citizen for a few fuck ups?


The more potentially dangerous the weapon, the harder I want it to be for people to get ahold of it.

Quit lumping me in with the people who are merely calling for a ban on assault weapons. Read my suggested gun control legislation and actually comment on it. Maybe even tell me whether you would support it, since you haven't even done that, when directly asked.

Here's the question again: Would you support federal gun legislation that did not take away the right to keep and bear arms, but instead required licensing, registration, and training, as well as stringent safety requirements for storing firearms that are not under your direct supervision, under which purposefully breaking any of these laws would be considered a felony and could result in the suspension of your license and jail time at a minimum?

So you want us to be like Honduras now?
Reply
#77
Here's the question again: Would you support federal gun legislation that did not take away the right to keep and bear arms, but instead required licensing, registration, and training, as well as stringent safety requirements for storing firearms that are not under your direct supervision, under which purposefully breaking any of these laws would be considered a felony and could result in the suspension of your license and jail time at a minimum?

If not, why not.
Reply
#78
Quote:How many gun crimes are committed in countries where guns are tightly restricted? Very, very few. Why? Because there are so few guns available that even the criminals can't get ahold of them easily.

You can ask and answer your own question question all you want but that doesn't make me believe it.
Why do so many of you pretend that our country doesn't have more gangs and criminals that drive up the number of shooting in our country?
Why do you all insist on comparing the USA to countries that you admit have no where near an many people incarcerated?
And that fact seems clear to me to be proof of my claim.. That we have more criminals and THEY are the reason behind our high number of gun deaths.

And you keep saying that all you want is restrictions and yet now you want to point to countries with BANS:wacko::wacko:

Quote:I also want restrictions on how guns can be stored when not under the owner's direct supervision.
You want a hell of a lot. How in the hell are you planning on enforcing all of these "I wants"?


Quote:I also want people to be severely punished for purposefully breaking any of the gun laws.

Thanks you, that's what I want. Because like I have been saying that is the REAL problem.. criminals with guns.






Quote:
And please tell me how my telling you that you can own some guns and some ammunition is banning you from owning guns and ammunition.

It's banning me from having or owning the amount and types of guns and ammo that I want.
I have no idea what in the world you think this would accomplish. Where are any facts that show the number of weapons or amount of ammo people own is or ever has been a problem??

And how in the hell are you going to limit the amount of ammunition I can buy??
Who are you to tell target shooters that can only shoot so much?
How many freaking rounds am I allowed per day or per year?? Do you realize that people reload their own ammo?
If you only allow me to buy X amount of ammo for a certain time period, how are you ever going to know if I'm using it or hording it??
Reply
#79
(01-09-2013, 04:26 PM)csrowan Wrote: Here's the question again: Would you support federal gun legislation that did not take away the right to keep and bear arms, but instead required licensing, registration, and training, as well as stringent safety requirements for storing firearms that are not under your direct supervision, under which purposefully breaking any of these laws would be considered a felony and could result in the suspension of your license and jail time at a minimum?

If not, why not.

No, it doesn't work in a country of just over 8 million, how
do you expect it to work in a country of 3 hundred million.
Reply
#80
Here's the thing. Everyone keeps saying that criminals will have guns, no matter what.

So why are there so few crimes committed with guns in other first world countries with heavy gun restrictions? There are criminals there, too. Shouldn't they be using those guns, which everyone says they will have?

Yes, I can keep asking and answering my own questions, and I do so because no one else seems to be willing to admit the obvious: strong federal gun control will, over time, make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.



How do I plan on enforcing it? How do we enforce anything else?

Do I expect everyone to turn in their guns or get licensed or register them all? No. But over time, a larger and larger percentage will, especially as lawbreakers are caught and punished, and new guns are purchased under the stricter guidelines.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)