Biden to unveil gun control measures, appoint ATF chief

[PureX]

Would you clarify what you mean by "physically disabled"

Blind men shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

 

[PureX]

What law will keep criminals from obtaining guns?

Laws keep the rest if us from becoming criminals. And remove the criminals from among us when they cross that line.

 

[We Never Know]

Blind men shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

The two blind people I know consider themselves handicapped, not disabled.

 

[We Never Know]

Laws keep the rest if us from becoming criminals. And remove the criminals from among us when they cross that line.

That didn't answer my question....
What law will keep criminals from obtaining guns?

 

[PureX]

The two blind people I know consider themselves handicapped, not disabled.

Their sight is "disabled". Not "handicapped".

 

[PureX]

That didn't answer my question....
What law will keep criminals from obtaining guns?

Your question is stupid (logically incoherent), as a criminal, by definition, is someone who breaks the law. So there is no law that can stop the criminal from breaking it after he's just broken it.

 

[We Never Know]

Their sight is "disabled". Not "handicapped".

But they are not disabled. That's the point.

 

[We Never Know]

Your question is stupid (logically incoherent), as a criminal, by definition, is someone who breaks the law. So there is no law that can stop the criminal from breaking it after he's just broken it.

Exactly!!!! So no new gun laws will affect them at all. That's the whole point.

 

[metis]

good round of retort.....

but the real problem is the NUT CASE......with a gun

That is a problem but not the problem.

In China, not long before the Sandy Hook massacre, a madman stabbed 22 elementary school children, but all of them survived. How about Sandy Hook though?

There are always going to be some people with mental illness, so guns or no guns would not change that. But how many they may kill very much tends to relate to which weapons were used, and we well know that guns are far more deadly that knives, spears, bow & arrow, or even my wife.

 

[Suave]

President Joe Biden to unveil gun control measures, appoint ATF chief - UPI.com



I never heard of "ghost guns" before.



Apparently ghost guns are sold in parts, where criminals can buy these kits and put them together in less than 30 minutes.



The new ATF chief is a former Federal agent and gun control advocate.



It appears that Biden is serious about addressing issues with gun violence, but if past experience is anything to go by, it's going to be a huge political battle.

Poorly constructed 3-D printed plastic guns might explode in the hands of their shooters'. For public safety's sake, I'd like these ghastly ghostly firearms being banned by Presidential execute order.

 

[metis]

Criminals don't obey laws. Any new laws will be ignored by them.

In the late 1940's and into the1950's, the homicide rate in the UK and France was going up, and much of this increase was contributed to by many of the former soldiers bringing home their service guns. Both countries decided to go after them, invoking stiff penalties with the mere possession of an illegal gun-- up to 10 years in the UK being possible.

The end result was a gradual drop in homicides, which now is several TIMES lower than what we have here in the States. This is why so many police departments here have had gun buy-back programs.

 

[We Never Know]

That is a problem but not the problem.

In China, not long before the Sandy Hook massacre, a madman stabbed 22 elementary school children, but all of them survived. How about Sandy Hook though?

There are always going to be some people with mental illness, so guns or no guns would not change that. But how many they may kill very much tends to relate to which weapons were used, and we well know that guns are far more deadly that knives, spears, bow & arrow, or even my wife.

Many mass shooter's purchased their gun within weeks of the shootings. Some through private sales that don't require a back ground check and some through other loop holes.
In my opinion all firearm sales even private should require a background check.


Mass shooters exploited gun laws, loopholes before carnage

 

[esmith]

It's not about declaring anyone, anything. It's about using past behavior to predict future behavior.

In other words you are advocating for predicting the future.
Also remember the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right and until a person is adjudgicated that they do not have that right anymore you can not remove that right.

 

[esmith]

This is an idiotic correlation.

Why? Explain your reasoning.

 

[esmith]

In the late 1940's and into the1950's, the homicide rate in the UK and France was going up, and much of this increase was contributed to by many of the former soldiers bringing home their service guns. Both countries decided to go after them, invoking stiff penalties with the mere possession of an illegal gun-- up to 10 years in the UK being possible.

The end result was a gradual drop in homicides, which now is several TIMES lower than what we have here in the States. This is why so many police departments here have had gun buy-back programs.

So you are advocating for stricter pushiment for violation of laws dealing with firearms. What you know we finaly agree on something concerning firearms.

 

[esmith]

One big difference is they blame the person, not the car.

I agree it is not the inaminate object that is at fault, it is the human using the object.

 

[McBell]

That depends, has he been arrested in the past for threats of violence, stalking, assault, drunkenness, drug possession, domestic abuse, or social disturbance? Would he be able to pass a test involving every aspect of gun ownership and usage, as well as a psyche evaluation? If not, he would be denied a license to purchase, own, carry, or use a firearm. He would have to steal one, which would then be reported, and investigated. Making his desire to commit mass murder much more difficult.

Wow.
not only are you completely ignorant of that case, you have no intention of learning about it even enough to defend your proposed law....

Of course you don't. You're trying very hard not to. You're telling yourself that if regulation can't stop EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of gun violence, it can't stop ANY INSTANCE of gun violence. Which is patently absurd, of course. But the gun fetish in this country is so powerful that it obscures all sense of reason and proportion. And causes the fetishists to reach for and accept even the most absurd justifications.

Wow.
It is most impressive how you whooped that strawmans ***!!

Perhaps now you can put that energy to work explaining how your proposed law will prevent mass shootings?

Or perhaps you know it won't and ar only attempting to distract from it?

No crime can be prevented 100%.

You are the only one in this thread making any claims otherwise.
Problem is you are falsely apply that claim to me.

But they can all be prevented a great majority of the time with effective policing (regulation). Very few gun deaths are the result of people plotting and planning to kill someone else regardless of the law or the consequences. They are the result of a moment of mental and emotional instability, often brought on by drugs or alcohol, and by innate ant-social tendencies. So the people who tend to engage in this sort of behavior should not be allowed access to firearms. It's that simple. And the fact that you're trying to argue with this logic using the absurd idea that the only acceptable criteria for regulation is absolute perfection makes it clear to me that you aren't thinking clearly about this at all.
It doesn't matter. If everyone around him DOES care about following the regulations, they will not be enabling his violent insanity as they are currently doing, because they will care about the consequences, to themselves, if they're caught.

Again, instead of explaining how your proposed law would make a positive difference, you run off into left field attacking strawmen.
Why is it you flat out refuse to explain how your proposed law will make a difference?

People used to think nothing of driving drunk. And as a result a lot of innocent citizens were killed and maimed every year on our roads. Eventually we realized that we had to seriously tighten up the regulations involved in driving motor vehicles, and because we did so. we significantly minimized the number of citizens being killed by drunk drivers each year. We didn't stop it from happening completely, but we did significantly minimize it's occurrence. It's just common sense. Some people can't be allowed to drive because they cannot do so safely or responsibly. And the same is true of people owning, carrying, and using firearms.

more blatant avoidance.

I tell you what.
YOU pick and choose which of the last say, 500 fire arms deaths your proposed law would have prevented and explain exactly why it would.

Now since you are long on making crap up and assigning it to me and short on actually supporting your proposed law, I shant be holding my breath.

 

[Kooky]

Criminals don't obey laws. Any new laws will be ignored by them.

People get caught all the time for illegal possession.

It may be so that the tighter the restrictions are, the more likely they may run afoul of them, but that's just speculation on my part.

 

[Kooky]

The war in drugs over the last 50 years has sure been effective at stopping drugs...right?

Just like laws against theft have eliminated stealing!

I take it that you, too, would be in favor of abolishing the current legal code and its overarching system of government altogether?

 

[Thief]

That is a problem but not the problem.

In China, not long before the Sandy Hook massacre, a madman stabbed 22 elementary school children, but all of them survived. How about Sandy Hook though?

There are always going to be some people with mental illness, so guns or no guns would not change that. But how many they may kill very much tends to relate to which weapons were used, and we well know that guns are far more deadly that knives, spears, bow & arrow, or even my wife.

but it remains the focus of media.....the crazy guy
and that focus takes us to law making