No, because gun crime is actually down.
As the increase in gun ownership skyrockets, the rates of firearm murder (and firearm crime) is down.
What I see is not a single suggestion that will "save lives". That and complete red herrings.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT:
- Thread starter bleedbluegold3
- Start date
No, because gun crime is actually down.
As the increase in gun ownership skyrockets, the rates of firearm murder (and firearm crime) is down.
What I see is not a single suggestion that will "save lives". That and complete red herrings.
No, like I said before give me a bolt action rifle and I could kill at random . When is the last gang related incident where more than I or two were killed ?
nice that you put the U.K. In there where suicide bombs and terror attacks are not considered homicide.
Also, your chart does not prove an increase in gun violence.
Believe me, I could go on all day debating Gun Control, Firearms, Violence Statistics, etc. You're never going to change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours.
The problem is the demands of illegals for special treatment and exemption from our laws. The rights expressed in our Constitution, for the most part, are inalienable. Our existence alone grants us these rights. Therefore, citizenship is not required to claim said rights. But, nothing in the Constitution gives anyone a pass to violate our laws, certainly not ones as basic as "respect our borders".
The whole DACA/Dreamer movement is about money and power. Money and power for BOTH political parties.
The whole DACA/Dreamer movement is about money and power. Money and power for BOTH political parties.
Absolutely. Thing is....I own two guns. I just want the industry regulated, and people held accountable.
Also, your chart does not prove an increase in gun violence.
Believe me, I could go on all day debating Gun Control, Firearms, Violence Statistics, etc. You're never going to change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours.
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers
You mean the statistics on how many gang members state that they commit violent crimes and participate in gang activity because they own a gun?
Stats do not show the correlation I am referencing, at least I'm not aware of any. The stats I am aware of are that guns in circulation in the US is significantly up --- due to Obama in office in part I'm sure --- but looking at those numbers spike at a time when gun related violence was at an all time high (93-94, I think) we also see a spike in guns in circulation.
The reality of the situation is that controlling guns won't control crime, but it is a part of the process that needs to take place, imo. Integrity, values, respect for human life can't be controlled.....weapons can. And it's not like I want all guns taken out of circulation....I just want the industry to be held accountable, I want various aspects of arms (assault weapons - extended clips - etc...) licensed to only those with proper training, I want people better trained in operation and safety, I want it more difficult to purchase a weapon (illegally).
I understand there is a toothpaste and tube thing here, but we can still clean the **** up.
And I only want educated people posting on the internet and voting in November... :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
With almost every gun/crime statistic, handguns is >80% of the demographic. Rifles is 15%, leaving <1% for full auto and "assault" weapons. Yet you, and all other gun regulation purveyor, concentrate on the 1%.
I focus on the culture actually. And I never even said to outlaw them, I said to license them, so they are only sold to people properly trained. Why is it harder for me to drive a UPS truck than it is to purchase an assault rifle?
Weapons should be seen as one of the most serious things created by man, I'm sure most on the right agree with that.....the power that they possess. I'm not saying they should be rare, but maybe just a little less abundant.
You appear confused on "controlled".
I want those in Chicago "held accountable".
Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 474
Total Shot: 2743
Total Homicides: 511
September to Date
Shot & Killed: 37
Total Shot: 203
Total Homicides: 37
And yet, if we're in agreement with the intent of the 2nd, limiting as you suggest, would further inhibit the intent behind us having them.
Again, I don't see this as a gun problem as needing solved. I see this as a deficiency in dealing with the mentally ill, a devaluation on human life, a deterioration of respect for law, and the glorification of the crime culture within urban environments. The mind is the problem, the gun is the instrument/tool.
It's not as black and white as gun lovers want to make it. I just don't understand why the limits and regs bother people so much.
Because the propositions proposed don't address the problem area which are handguns. Moreover, it's not even close. It's also believed, and accurately in my opinion, that it won't stop there because it won't solve the problem. The next logical step is to take it a step further to try and address the problem which isn't being addressed at the onset of the proposed solutions. Moreover, we've already had a 10 year assault weapons ban and neither the Bureau nor the ATF could produce any evidential data to support it's success.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
Interesting
I agree, it doesn't solve the problem....but it's an attempt to try to change the culture, imo.
Interesting choice of words....change the culture, put another way as infringe on a constitutionally protected freedom.
Sticking with your misplaced use of words, let's put your solution into context.
We've well established through statistics that AWs make up a very small % of gun crimes. However, when used in the hands of a crazy, they are extremely efficient. But notice what I said, "in the hands of a crazy". Considering the number of assault weapons on the street today, you're talking about engineering a solution for .00000000001% of the AW community. Moreover, there are existing laws currently on the books which "should" inhibit the "crazy" from getting the weapons in the first place.
What you and those who think like you are suggesting os completely illogical. It's akin to trying to limit construction accidents by making everyone use smaller hammers because people keep falling off ladders.
Because one is a fundamental right and the other is a choice of employment. You don't want "morality" legislated, yet this is your essential argument under the guise of "gun control"?
Last edited:
And please explain boom, under what principles do we "change" the culture to? Based on what standard?
Yours?
I don't understand the tax code. Why is Government so "bothered" by us keeping most of what we earn?
Why is it their business what private choices we make with our own money?
Why are our economic freedoms limited to what the IRS says we can and cannot deduct to keep more of what we earn?
Why do we have to "report" our earnings?
Why can't we just pay a flat % on every dollar spent and be done with it? (like a national retail sales tax that's charged to everyone based on what they actually spend not earn?)
Yes...a "consumption" tax...which is quite Constitutional I might add.
Income taxes? Not so much.
I'd argue thoughts are equally as dangerous if not more so when coupled with weapons designed to kill.
But if I'm holding a gun to protect my Family in the event of an intruder my thoughts can save all of our lives.
I think a construction worker should use whatever tool he needs to get the job done. I do, however, think those large hammers should be banned from being used as toothbrushes. Wait.....what?
My point is, AW's are useful for what purpose? If it's solely recreational, I'm fine with that....but I want those buying and using those weapons to be very skilled in firearms, very aware of their power, and very intent on public safety. If it's for bunker stock to survive the fallout, I'm fine with that too.....but the same concerns apply for me.
I just want production of these weapons to drop.....substantially. I want there to be some type of tracking and accountability for the manufacturer, and those that purchase them legally. I want to prevent AW's, rifles, hand guns, and large hammers from getting into the hands of criminals. Any action on the hill that can maybe effect that....even 00000000001%.....I'm all for, because firearms are not the most powerful weapon we can possess as Americans in defense of our rights, imo.
I also advocate for the legalization of most drugs as well...to get money out of the hands of criminals. So, it's not just about bigger government. If the business community was held accountable, I wouldn't be as pissy about gun control as I am.
Also, I have kids....and neighbors that are careless with their weapons....odds might be against an accident, but I'm sure you feel the same protecting instinct towards yours. I'd like to see more, not less, motions towards helping protect from fools and crazies.
That was not the original purpose of the 2nd, or most of the BOR. The founders did not trust a strong federal government. They didn't want a standing army. The 2nd is our last line of defense for what you all are skeered to death of: a fascist authoritarian, whether that's a president or a military coup. And it's not necessarily that those having the arms would be able to beat a standing army, it's that hopefully the standing army doesn't have the will to kill American citizens.
As I said earlier in this thread, that's the most compelling argument against gun control, imo. But, again, I'm not saying we should take everybody's guns am I? No. But the prop machine turns any measure of gun control into a massive liberal conspiracy to violate your American rights.
And here is a really big thing that many on the right (and left) refuse to see with regard to our founding fathers. There were differences of opinion even back then. That's America. Some at the convention didn't want a BOR, some didn't want an arms admendment, some wanted an absolute right to own firearms, some wanted it only stipulated for militia. Almost 250 years later, we look back and assume we know how our founders felt about our current weapons, militia, army, and ownership rights? Sure. You see what supports your position, and I see what supports mine. Bottom line is.....it was a compromise, and written with specific mention of militia purposes. Define militia whatever way you'd like. I also again mention here: I'm not in favor of the right to own weapons being taken away.
I'd argue the militia is only 1/2 of the argument. As in:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in order to stand up a militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in order to maintain the security of a FREE state.
Look, bottom line, I think everyone should own fireamrs. I also don't think everyone should own a firearm. Meaning, I wish everyone were responsible and knowledgeable enough to own them and I fully acknowledge they aren't.
There are things I agree with, National Registry for one.(I don't subscribe to the notion of: now they know who to find first!). I'd like firearms education and safety taught alongside of sex ed to develop a better understanding and remove the boogeyman effect, but most importantly, instill the respect of consequence of firearms.
Did you know, without a Class III license, you can't go fully auto? It's only semiauto capability for the average user. And when talking semi-auto, how do you distinguish? Shotguns outside of single shot and pump action are semi-auto. Most of the shotguns people buy for bird hunting (unless you're an uppity rich *******) are semi-auto. Pistols, unless it's a revolver, it's semi-auto. Many deer rifles are semi-auto. By the by, to get a Class III you voluntarily waive your right to due process. The ATF can and will come and inspect your premise on no-notice. Also, Class III weapons can't be purchased for less than $15k. The same weapon in semi-auto might be anywhere from $800-$2200 depending on the mods and quality of brand.
I still go back to trying to engineer a solution to problem when one doesn't truly exist statistically. 1 crazy a year vs 10's of millions of people.