Gun Control

[Audie]

I admitted that I was wrong about the soldiers being armed. Didn’t u get the memo?

Also i did not change the subject. I’m simply refuting the articles you sent me backing up the good guy with gun theory with another article that’s proves that theory wrong.

Saying that the soldiers having guns might’ve giving them a chance, your ignoring the fact that the shooting took place at a Military base with all the security and all of the trained military personal. And the massacre still happened.

Memo? I noted you were making things up.
right from the first, and of course too, your
rebranding of it. "Enthusiasm". .

Fact is there were no armed personnel present,
tho you claimed there were.

"Enthusiasm" is quite the euphemism for a
gross factual error negating your central claim
in the matter. Saying now that you were wrong
is a bit hollow as you cling to the claim anyway.

If armed personnel are present when the shooting
stsrts they can and do take action, a cowardly deputy
in Fla notwithstanding. Some soldiers take cover in
war, but "shoot back" is kind of like a principle of
survival since before bow and arrow.

Haul out websites as you like, lets see you find one
that "proves" that armed personnel present
makes no difference, or however you wish to
phrase it.

You yet again are making things up- me ignoring
that it was a militsry base.

How should we characterize that behaviour, and
your emphasis on "all the security and all the trained
personnel" but continuing to omit any mention
of the fact that they were unarmed? See how you
admitted you had been wrong and then go right
back to it?


Sheesh. I dont even like guns, but I do like facts and
common sense. People making things up, not so much.

 

[Altfish]

 

[Salvador]

Did you ever hear of the fort hood and Washington navy yard shooting? Both military bases where there were plenty of good guys walking around with guns, but that didn’t stop 2 rampage shooters form going on a killing spree. Sorry but the NRA’s good guy with a gun talking point is false. Texas––which has long had permissive laws on guns––was among the states that expanded gun rights, by reducing safety training requirements to apply for concealed-carry permits.

Where were all the good guys to stop the shooter on elpaso?

Similarly, Ohio has also expanded rights for gun owners. Ohio lawmakers passed a law that allows people with concealed-carry weapons permits to bring firearms into day care centers and onto private planes and lets employees bring guns to their company parking lots. Where were all the good guys with guns in Ohio to stop that shooter?

According to

Did you ever hear of the fort hood and Washington navy yard shooting? Both military bases where there were plenty of good guys walking around with guns, but that didn’t stop 2 rampage shooters form going on a killing spree. Sorry but the NRA’s good guy with a gun talking point is false. Texas––which has long had permissive laws on guns––was among the states that expanded gun rights, by reducing safety training requirements to apply for concealed-carry permits.

Where were all the good guys to stop the shooter on elpaso?

Similarly, Ohio has also expanded rights for gun owners. Ohio lawmakers passed a law that allows people with concealed-carry weapons permits to bring firearms into day care centers and onto private planes and lets employees bring guns to their company parking lots. Where were all the good guys with guns in Ohio to stop that shooter?

There are likely on average hundreds upon hundreds of annual justifiable homicides done by armed U.S. private citizens.

https://www.ammoland.com/2015/02/how-many-justified-homicides-occur-each-year/#axzz5wLBxqg4N

Law-abiding citizens aren't going to break the law by carry guns into a gun-free zone like the Walmart in El Paso where only a criminal broke the law there by slaughtering defenseless weaponless people.

In Ohio, there were good guys with guns, namely the police, who promptly stopped a bad guy with a gun before the body count scored into the dozens. Unfortunately, as learned from the Parkland High shooting massacre, some armed police retreated from gunfire rather than engage somebody on a shooting rampage. This incident demonstrated that people can't always count on the police to stop a mass shooter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Law-abiding citizens aren't going to break the law by carry guns into a gun-free zone like the Walmart in El Paso where only a criminal broke the law there by slaughtering defenseless weaponless people.

If the law was changed requiring firearm owners to register their weapons, would "law-abiding citizens" comply?

 

[wandering peacefully]

That which is not rocket science may, though,
prove to be facile.

How would you apply your formula to warfare?
If your side had half the guns of the other, it
should save some of their lives but...

Or as I mentioned in another thread, a lady
who was kidnapped and thrown in the trunk
of a car. SHE had a gun in her purse.
The badguy died when he opened the trunk.

One gun death sure could have been prevented
if she just had not had that gun!

Could have had one of those torture-in-the-
abandoned-house deaths, instead.

I'm not sure I follow. I am not against people owning firearms for hunting or self protection. Not in this day and age. No way, no how.

As I said in a different post, when they give up all their guns, I'll give up mine. Ifin I gets one.

I'm not sure at all what you mean by warfare? If it is between the citizens of vs the military, no guns is gonna help any of us.

If it comes down to water resources becoming less available and wars between neighbors, well we could all kiss our rears goodbye anyway. We could go on and on with what ifs but I don't see how that addresses the current problem of having weapons of war which kill so many, available to so many in the population apparently willing to do that.

 

[Salvador]

If the law was changed requiring firearm owners to register their weapons, would "law-abiding citizens" comply?

I reckon some persons would refuse to register any of their guns for fear they will be targeted by a governmental effort to take their guns away. Others might fail to register some of their guns, in order to hide them from getting confiscated if authorities were to ban them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I reckon some persons would refuse to register any of their guns for fear they will be targeted by a governmental effort to take their guns away. Others might fail to register some of their guns, in order to hide them from getting confiscated if authorities were to ban them.

So "law-abiding citizens" don't necessarily abide by the law?

 

[Salvador]

So "law-abiding citizens" don't necessarily abide by the law?

In some cases, like when they're asked to give up their 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights, they should not be compelled to follow along with any infringement upon their Constitutional rights.

 

[Curious George]

Let's fill in some blanks real quick.

That is mass shootings does it retroactively apply the newer definition of a mass shooting, i wonder?

 

[Curious George]

Looks like suicide accounted for most of the growth until very recently

 

[Shad]

Let's fill in some blanks real quick.

Hedging your bet as you claimed more than mass shootings. Read your own comment again.

 

[Shad]

Ban and buy back semi automatic weapons.

Found the person that knows nothing about guns.

Almost every gun you can buy is semi-automatic.... You just advocated for massive gun bans as you have no idea what the terms you use mean.

 

[Shad]

Walmart in El Paso had a lot of armed citizens. You're talking out of your hat.

All of which were breaking the law and policy if they did. Do you think if someone stop the guy leftist media wouldn't be spinning it into more gun control Mr I do not know was semiauto is?

https://www.simon.com/mall/cielo-vista-mall
https://www.simon.com/legal/code-of-conduct

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In some cases, like when they're asked to give up their 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights, they should not be compelled to follow along with any infringement upon their Constitutional rights.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Knives lead to knife deaths. Cars lead to car deaths. But, so what? We dont ban those. Why ban guns?

Because they aren't necessary? Unlike the others - and where their main purpose is not to kill. Perhaps it is more your insecurity (and others, and your history, and your culture) that is driving gun ownership - must have a gun to protect me against some other fellow/villain/unknown who has a gun? Why not look to all the other (relatively) civilised countries that seem to manage without them? Ignoring the hunting argument or the competition one. Too fond of toys?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because they aren't necessary? Unlike the others - and where their main purpose is not to kill. Perhaps it is more your insecurity (and others, and your history, and your culture) that is driving gun ownership - must have a gun to protect me against some other fellow/villain/unknown who has a gun? Why not look to all the other (relatively) civilised countries that seem to manage without them? Ignoring the hunting argument or the competition one. Too fond of toys?

FWIW: Canada has plenty of guns. Not as many per capita as the US now, but a few decades ago, our gun ownership rates were similar.

The big differences between our two countries is in our legal framework:

- keeping weapons for self defense - unless you're defending yourself from bears in the wilderness - isn't recognized as a legitimate reason to keep a gun.
- pistols are restricted weapons. You can buy them, but there's a rigorous licensing process and heavy restrictions on how they can be used, stored, and transported.

If you want a pistol for competitive shooting - or a non-sporting handgun for blasting targets at the range - you can have it. You'll have to jump through a bunch of licensing hoops and generally have to leave your gun locked up at the range when you aren't using it, but you can have it.

If you want to hunt, you can do it. The licensing process for a long gun isn't that onerous. You'll just have to store your firearm locked and unloaded when you aren't using it for hunting.

It's not guns per se that cause most of the problem; it's all the allowances that the US makes for being able to put bullets into human beings, whether in terms of the weapons that are available or how they can be carried and stored. Take away those allowances and the bulk of the problem goes away. It wouldn't make things perfect, but it would make both the firearm death rate and the overall homicide rate a fraction of what they are now.

 

[Audie]

If the law was changed requiring firearm owners to register their weapons, would "law-abiding citizens" comply?

You sure like to try to find some sort of "gotcha" and
contrive hypocrisy that you may stand on the moral /
intellectual higher ground.

In general, registration sounds like a harmless
and possibly good thing. But what does it
actually accomplish? Seriously, what is the
purpose?

While we dont care for "slippery slope" arguments,
it is so that registration then clears the way for
confiscation.

As for the law abiding and the gotcha, I suppose
we could go full Godwin, and say that there were
laws concerning turning in the Jews in Germany
and France etc.

Or we could wax more philosophical, and cite
Thoreau and his piece "On the Duty of Civil
Disobedience".

Moral high ground, and all.

 

[Audie]

FWIW: Canada has plenty of guns. Not as many per capita as the US now, but a few decades ago, our gun ownership rates were similar.

The big differences between our two countries is in our legal framework:

- keeping weapons for self defense - unless you're defending yourself from bears in the wilderness - isn't recognized as a legitimate reason to keep a gun.
- pistols are restricted weapons. You can buy them, but there's a rigorous licensing process and heavy restrictions on how they can be used, stored, and transported.

If you want a pistol for competitive shooting - or a non-sporting handgun for blasting targets at the range - you can have it. You'll have to jump through a bunch of licensing hoops and generally have to leave your gun locked up at the range when you aren't using it, but you can have it.

If you want to hunt, you can do it. The licensing process for a long gun isn't that onerous. You'll just have to store your firearm locked and unloaded when you aren't using it for hunting.

It's not guns per se that cause most of the problem; it's all the allowances that the US makes for being able to put bullets into human beings, whether in terms of the weapons that are available or how they can be carried and stored. Take away those allowances and the bulk of the problem goes away. It wouldn't make things perfect, but it would make both the firearm death rate and the overall homicide rate a fraction of what they are now.

Couple of questions...keeping weapons for self defense ...
isn't recognized as a legitimate reason to keep a gun.

Could you perhaps cite the law?
I am curious how this works. Surely one can use
deadly force in gravest extreme.
Does one state the purpose of a gun when buying it?
Like, "this glock is for decorative purposes"?
And if you say "self defense" they wont let you buy it?


overall homicide rate a fraction of what they are now

99.9% is a fraction.
I dont think a change in "allowance" will impress
the gnagster bangsters in the least.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You sure like to try to find some sort of "gotcha" and
contrive hypocrisy that you may stand on the moral /
intellectual higher ground.

In general, registration sounds like a harmless
and possibly good thing. But what does it
actually accomplish? Seriously, what is the
purpose?

Reducing gun deaths and injuries, and reducing the availability of guns to criminals.

SOURCES:
Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns
Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides

While we dont care for "slippery slope" arguments,
it is so that registration then clears the way for
confiscation.

So, you "don't care for" slippery slope arguments... But you still use one?

You are aware that there are countries in the world that have put in place firearm permit and licensing laws and not confiscated firearms, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In general, registration sounds like a harmless
and possibly good thing. But what does it
actually accomplish? Seriously, what is the
purpose?

Off the top of my head:

- knowing that a gun is registered to a particular address or to the owner of a particular vehicle is useful for police to know how to approach the situation.

- registering firearms makes it easier to trace guns used in crime back to their source, and thereby is a useful tool to combat the black market for weapons.

- if someone loses their right to own firearms (e.g. if they get a felony conviction, or if they have a restraining order against them for domestic abuse), knowing what firearms they legally own can help in making sure they turn in all of them.