Another mass shooting...

[Coreeece 2]

tonyhays

Quote

Our constitution was written in a way that ensured there would always be a system of checks and balances to protect us from tyranny.

If you think armed citizens are any threat to the U.S. government, you are living in a dream world.

Tanks, drones, fighter jets, cruise missiles, satellite surveillance, etc vs. small arms fire from unorganised, untrained weekend warriors.

The 2nd amendment was relevant when it was written and everyone had close to the same level of weaponry. Times change and to keep using the "tyranny" argument is silly.

That sounds similar to anti-vaxxer logic - "Hey, we don't have these diseases anymore and the vaccines are only hurting us now...I know, let's get rid of vacines!"

We may not have a tyrannical government right now, but if history has taught us anything, it's that it tends to repeat itself - and we shouldn't set up future generations for failure.

The history of successful guerrilla warfare against big military has already been pointed out to you, but it goes beyond that. If our already volatile socioeconomic structure ever happens to collapse, people will need to depend on firearms not only for protection against other citizens, but also for hunting - and I really don't wanna have to jump out of a tree and spear a boar through the head.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[DanG 1]

You're new here.

I'm not one of "you guys". I strongly favor gun rights. I think requiring background checks for all purchases will help reduce random gun violence. It probably won't have much of an impact in gang crime, but gang crime mostly affects gangsters. Crazy people with guns affects law abiding people.

If there is little or no downside, why not support background checks?

- Dan G

[jbscout2002 1]

DanG

You're new here.

I'm not one of "you guys". I strongly favor gun rights. I think requiring background checks for all purchases will help reduce random gun violence. It probably won't have much of an impact in gang crime, but gang crime mostly affects gangsters. Crazy people with guns affects law abiding people.

If there is little or no downside, why not support background checks?

Background checks are already in place. When I started buying guns 20 years ago, even in gun friendly states like GA, LA, TX, OK, TN, KY, I had to pass a background check. There were places where you could sell a gun private sale, but you are responsible for it. If you knowingly sell to someone who can't legally own, you committed a felony. I wouldn't take that chance for someone. If you "thought" they were "cool" and they did something with a gun you sold they, again, your ass on the line. I wouldn't take that chance with some of my own family members. If I haven't known you my whole life, go to a store and buy your gun.

I think this is what gun control people don't realize. These laws exist. There is accountability. Wording gets twisted and misunderstanding of laws are used to create fear. Most people in favor of stricter laws, don't know what the base line is, therefor wouldn't even know if a new law was more, or less, strict.

[jbscout2002 1]

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1 -cdc.gov

Homicide: The killing of one human being by another. - dictionary.com

2015 gun related homicides: 10,016
30% officer involved shootings
14% accidental shootings
9% justifiable or defense related shootings - fbi.gov

This leaves 47% of gun related homicides as murders (4707.52, or 12.9 per day for 1 year)

1300 preventable deaths every day - legal. guilt campaign. taxes

13 ?preventable? Deaths per day - public outcry. political pressure. constitutional restrictions. elected president shaming the people he represents for not supporting his ideals.

PIORITIES

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No one is suggesting a background check requirement will end illegal gun sales. It will, however, make many potential sellers think twice before making a questionable transaction. It would, I believe, make it harder for people to illegally purchase firearms. It would also not put much of a burden on law abiding people.

What is the goal of the law (universal background checks in Colorado)?

How do measure of the law is achieving that goal?

Is the law achieving the set goal?

Are people that are selling guns without a background check being caught and prosecuted?

Or was this law an emotional response and is actually doing nothing?

Derek V

[jbscout2002 1]

Come to think of it. A utopian socialist society, free of crime and inequality, where the people represent the ideals of their chosen leader rather than their leader representing them? This sounds amazing, but familiar. Oh, yeah. Jonestown.

[Hooknswoop 19]

"wo Colorado lawmakers, Senate President John Morse and Senator Angela Giron, were recalled based on their support of the high capacity magazine ban. And the ban became a source of friction between Hickenlooper and most Colorado sheriffs who vehemently opposed the law saying it was unenforceable.
And after all that, high capacity magazines were still relatively easy for an undercover CBS4 producer to purchase.
At a Douglas County gun store, a salesman said many stores sell 30 round magazines with minor modifications so they comply with the 15 round legal limit."

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/10/30/many-circumventing-colorado-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

Another example. A law based on emotion.

Derek V

[Anvilbrother 0]

DanG

Were any of the guns used in high profile mass shootings "ghost guns"?

Do you think the average mentally unstable murderer is tied in to the international black gun market?

I never said requiring background checks will eliminate illegal guns. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average crazy person to get a gun.

Mass shootings are a tiny fraction of gun murders. It is a fact that ghost guns exist, and are used in the U.S in many murders. It is easy to find this information simply by searching for arrests made with charges that include possession of a weapon having an altered serial number etc. The gang street shootings are the majority of gun deaths, and they are the ones using "ghost guns" the most.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jbscout2002 1]

Hooknswoop

"wo Colorado lawmakers, Senate President John Morse and Senator Angela Giron, were recalled based on their support of the high capacity magazine ban. And the ban became a source of friction between Hickenlooper and most Colorado sheriffs who vehemently opposed the law saying it was unenforceable.
And after all that, high capacity magazines were still relatively easy for an undercover CBS4 producer to purchase.
At a Douglas County gun store, a salesman said many stores sell 30 round magazines with minor modifications so they comply with the 15 round legal limit."

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/10/30/many-circumventing-colorado-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

Another example. A law based on emotion.

Derek V

Slide the bottom plate open, cut a #2 pencil to the right size and put it in the spring to stop it from compressing enough to accept more than 15 rounds.

Like buying a shotgun that only holds 3 shells. Pull a cheap wooden dowel rod out of the magazine tube and it holds 7.

If your state only allows a shotgun to hold 3 rounds and you take the rod out, you are committing a class C felony. Put it back in when you are done shooting and you are legal again.

[Amazon 7]

normiss

I would hope that earned a perma-ban.
If we still have those.

Yup... that went far beyond any form of decency.

[Amazon 7]

jakee

***

Quote

Wanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from.
Criminals already narc each other out for less.

Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that.

The law is un-enforceable.

Seems to be enforceable enough when it comes to drugs.

I see some more no-knock police incursions in some peoples future... it got to be a favorite tactic in the war on drugs... breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night on flimsy evidence could be a death sentence to more innocent citizens... with no repercussions to the jack booted thugs.

[jakee 1,563]

Coreeece

That's usually the argument coming from the anti-gun crowd that wants to legalize all drugs - which btw, kill more people than guns.

Yeah, but people like drugs a lot more than they like guns.

And the people that get killed by drugs usually chose to take those drugs.

And oftentimes the reason they died was because of the wildly varying quality of drugs produced, by neccessity, by amateur, unqualified criminals.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2

So?

Comes down to personal responsibility. In our countries every tobacco user is aware of the risks and consequences. The right of the smoker to smoke wherever s/he wants has been curtailed hwever, to protect the non-smoker who didn't choose to accept those risks.

(As an aside though, given how they behave in other countries without such legal protections tobacco companies are still agents of pure evil.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

***That's usually the argument coming from the anti-gun crowd that wants to legalize all drugs - which btw, kill more people than guns.

Yeah, but people like drugs a lot more than they like guns.

Ya, especially with under-aged kids - when the majority of drug use starts.

jakee

And the people that get killed by drugs usually chose to take those drugs.

Many of those people also happen to be underage, but heh, who gives a shit as long as the adults aren't hassled about their recreational drug use...let's just smoke a joint and bitch about guns.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jbscout2002 1]

jakee

Quote

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2

So?

Comes down to personal responsibility. In our countries every tobacco user is aware of the risks and consequences. The right of the smoker to smoke wherever s/he wants has been curtailed hwever, to protect the non-smoker who didn't choose to accept those risks.

(As an aside though, given how they behave in other countries without such legal protections tobacco companies are still agents of pure evil.)

And the 42,000 Americans per year who would rather not die from your second hand smoke compared to 4,700 per year who die from being shot?

Personal responsibility. I CHOOSE not to smoke and CHOOSE to own guns. I won't stand next to you while you smoke and you don't have to go to the range with me.

Problem solved

[jbscout2002 1]

This is why gun control advocates just make asses of themselves. You prove every one of their claims to be false, present them with real numbers, I. E. 480,000 preventable deaths per year verse 4700 that may have happened by a different means anyways if the gun wasn't there, and the rebuttal is, "So?"

Obviously nothing to do with public safety or health concerns, only guns. No different than the bitch trying to outlaw skydiving planes because they wake her up in the house she bought next to an airport

[Anvilbrother 0]

About 3000 people a year die or kill someone else while impaired behind the wheel of a vehicle.

It is not as innocent and self harming as you claim. A woman last week was charged when she flipped an ATV and killed a young child. She was impaired by drugs.
http://www.wafb.com/story/30135375/woman-charged-with-vehicular-negligent-homicide-after-6-year-old-killed-in-atv-crash

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,106]

jbscout2002

A study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout.

1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared".

2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway.

3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard.

Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well.

If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

That is because drinking and driving laws are toothless and unenforceable, right?

Also murder laws are toothless and unenforceable because murder is illegal in all 50 states, but the law is not preventing murder from happening.

FARs are toothless and unenforceable because jump pilots continue to attempt aerobatics in planes full of skydivers leading to injuries and death.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***A study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout.

1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared".

2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway.

3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard.

Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well.

If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one.

I'm citing my work just for you because you like to make accusations to discredit people, but absolutely everything you have said is completely without merrit and just pulled out of your ass.

[kallend 2,106]

jbscout2002

******A study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout.

1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared".

2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway.

3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard.

Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well.

If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one.

I'm citing my work just for you because you like to make accusations to discredit people, but absolutely everything you have said is completely without merrit and just pulled out of your ass.

Here's the proof. Scroll down to the third paragraph.

www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

You PLAGIARIZED the article which is from 2007.

or did you PLAGIARIZE it from here?

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=267085

Or maybe from here:

www.quora.com/Can-the-weak-gun-laws-in-the-US-be-a-reason-for-the-recent-spate-of-mindless-shootings-Or-has-it-got-more-to-do-with-the-nature-of-society-and-its-failure-as-a-whole-to-deal-with-issues-of-mental-health-proactively

The only person discrediting a plagiarist is the plagiarist, not the one who outs him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[yoink 321]

jbscout2002

Personal responsibility. I CHOOSE not to smoke and CHOOSE to own guns. I won't stand next to you while you smoke and you don't have to go to the range with me.

Problem solved

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I can't believe you don't see a difference between guns and smoking.

How about this. An adult has a pack of cigarettes which they use legally. Their son steals a pack, takes it to school and uses it. Net effect? Zero.

Now replace the cigarettes with a pistol. Net effect - people shot.

The problem with guns is how good they are at their job. It doesn't take years of exposure to have an effect. Just a split second.

I'm not too worried about criminals with guns - as Dan stated earlier they do tend to shoot each other more than civilians, and I can teach my kids ways to stay safer. We don't mix in the same social circles by choice.

How do I teach my kid to stay safe in school when anyone else could easily bring a gun in? They HAVE to mix in the same circles.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Many of those people also happen to be underage, but heh, who gives a shit as long as the adults aren't hassled about their recreational drug use...let's just smoke a joint and bitch about guns.

Sooo, you think the fact that currently all drug dealers are unlicensed, unregulated criminals makes it harder for kids to buy drugs?

Interesting theory

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

*********A study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout.

1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared".

2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway.

3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard.

Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well.

If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one.

I'm citing my work just for you because you like to make accusations to discredit people, but absolutely everything you have said is completely without merrit and just pulled out of your ass.

Here's the proof. Scroll down to the third paragraph.

www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

You PLAGIARIZED the article which is from 2007.

or did you PLAGIARIZE it from here?

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=267085

Or maybe from here:

www.quora.com/Can-the-weak-gun-laws-in-the-US-be-a-reason-for-the-recent-spate-of-mindless-shootings-Or-has-it-got-more-to-do-with-the-nature-of-society-and-its-failure-as-a-whole-to-deal-with-issues-of-mental-health-proactively

The only person discrediting a plagiarist is the plagiarist, not the one who outs him.

Not plagiarism, quoting published info (yes, copy and paste) and showing exactly where I got it from. Not making it up, pulling it out of thin air, passing it off as my research, or like you, offering nothing but but saying nuh uh at every fact presented

[Anvilbrother 0]

yoink

***
Personal responsibility. I CHOOSE not to smoke and CHOOSE to own guns. I won't stand next to you while you smoke and you don't have to go to the range with me.

Problem solved

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I can't believe you don't see a difference between guns and smoking.

How about this. An adult has a pack of cigarettes which they use legally. Their son steals a pack, takes it to school and uses it. Net effect? Zero.

Now replace the cigarettes with a pistol. Net effect - people shot.

The problem with guns is how good they are at their job. It doesn't take years of exposure to have an effect. Just a split second.

I'm not too worried about criminals with guns - as Dan stated earlier they do tend to shoot each other more than civilians, and I can teach my kids ways to stay safer. We don't mix in the same social circles by choice.

How do I teach my kid to stay safe in school when anyone else could easily bring a gun in? They HAVE to mix in the same circles.

How many lives are taken a year from tobacco, how many are taken by guns? If you are looking to save the most lives why would you not go after the NON constitutionally protected problem that kills 480,000 people a year in the U.S. And not the constitutionally protected one that kills thousands?

Just beyond the half a MILLION lives tobacco takes care to guess what the healthcare cost is? And that is not a cost that is taken on by the person with cancer it affects everyone causing you to pay for their actions also.

And sure you can't die from one use of a cigarette like a gun can, but when millions of people are doing it daily and in places where second hand smoke cannot be avoided you will get second hand smoke deaths, and out of that half a million us, and 6 million worldwide I bet it almost pars gun deaths.

Edit looked it up. So the CDC says

Quote

It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.

That's 8,500 deaths a year because of someone else's actions.

So almost half a million self inflicted deaths and 8,500 innocent bystander deaths for tobacco.

And 21,175 suicides and the rest homicide and accidents out of about 33,000 gun deaths per year.

Seems to me that it would be easier and more beneficial to ban tobacco.
That does not mean do nothing, enforce those laws, have mental health alerts in the system, but if you are looking for the biggest bang for the buck tobacco ban would save WAY more lives.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,