Guns aren't hard to get. Pretty much anyone without a criminal background can go buy one. A buddy of mine at the time got a Mosberg shotgun right after he turned 18. There are plenty of psycho's that don't have criminal records barring them from getting guns in their late teens and early 20's. Criminals can buy them at private trade shows in 40 states with no required background checks. You gun nuts must enjoy having your head in the sand.
I enjoy shooting guns. When I was in college, we would go up in the mountains and set up empty liquor bottles to shoot. AR-15's, AK47's, 1911's. Shooting shit is fun. But the gun laws in this country are not working.
What's not working?
Crimes involving firearms make up 8% of all violent incidents (Bureau of Justice).
We have a scenario where a fucking crazy shoots up 9 innocent people, can you say the knife laws of China aren't working because some crazy sliced up a crowd?
Here's another stat:
11,000 people were murdered by a gun last year. If we cut the American population to represent just the adult population (approximately 15,000,000)... you have a .0008% chance of the gun laws failing you.
Wanting to rewrite the gun laws over the media hyperbole ... is like wanting to rewrite the health care laws because 10% of American's are not covered.
The facts don't back up anyone's anti-gun argument.
This entire thread is about emotion.
It's right where Obama want's us to be ... arguing irrationally on emotion.
I never said I thought the gun laws would directly affect me. It's a problem that criminals and mentally ill fucks can legally obtain a gun so easily. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that, but they do. Any 18 year old idiot without a felony can legally buy a shotgun. Any 21 year old without a felony can get a handgun. There are no mental evaluations required.
Please answer these questions.
Why do guns sold privately not have to go through the same procedures and regulations as those bought at a sporting goods store?
Since there is only a .0008% chance of gun laws failing means everything is fine? What would my chance be of a fatal car crash with a .15 BAC?
What is so bad about more thorough criminal background and mental health evaluations when purchasing a gun?
It's about making it tougher on criminals and the mentally unstable. It's not about ruining it for responsible gun owners.
You're making an irrational argument.
Once you hit .008%, which is a very generous percentage ... since I used just 15 million citizens in a country with a population of 300 million ... you're at zero.
I don't entirely disagree, but using every adult is kind of retarded considering the majority of adults don't have guns. I know you are using ballpark numbers, but they are still very flawed.
The FBI reports there were 5.3 million crimes where a gun was visually present.
On the flip side, just shy of 1 million people report using a guy for self defense.
Every other comparable statistic ... BAC, 9/11 ... are straw man arguments.
Any argument that points out that there are laws created for unlikely events are straw man arguments? They aren't to be taken literally, but rather to show that small percentages do not always equal everything being fine.
I ask this, how do you know when a gun is sold privately? You can't regulate everything. You want to regulate a problem that statistically is zero. How do you get it better? Do you naively believe we can get to zero?
It's not statistically a zero. I'm not a law maker. To me, these arguments are similar to "We shouldn't fire Sark because who would you hire?" There are tons of way to make it tougher to sell a gun to a whacko. Do you naively believe that the gun laws couldn't possibly be more effective? Or do you believe that since you and others you know use guns responsibly means that things are perfectly fine?
As a comparable state ... 8,000 people died from heroin overdose, another 7,000 died from cocaine. I do believe, those two items are more tightly regulated than guns.
According to you, those are straw man arguments.
Regulation doesn't stop crazy. In the case of the asshole in this thread, if he didn't have a gun he'd use a pipe bomb ... or a pressure cooker.
You are correct. Regulation does not stop crazy. I still don't understand how making gun laws stricter would make things worse? I'm pretty sure certain it is harder to make an effective pipe bomb than pull a trigger.
Toppy, I know that you and others on this board love your guns, use them responsibly, and are not the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with everyone in this country. I still am not sure why stricter regulations would be such a bad thing? I don't believe it's irrational to try and take steps to prevent these tragedies from happening as often as they do.
This dude the other day was going to kill black people. He as a sick mother fuckera domestic terrorist who published a website that made violent threats against blacks and a criminal record (including drugs and criminal trespass) that should have red-flagged any gun purchase, no gun law would have stopped what happened.
When guns kill people, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. In 2008-2012, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides (defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen), according to the report -- a ratio of 38 to 1.
So you justify my numbers ... about 11k a year being killed by guns every year. Or less than overdose on drugs.
Knives killed about 1500 people a year. That's 10% of guns ... yet no anger.
A majority of murders come from handguns. Let's look at the two states who have the toughest gun control laws in the country The Socialist Republic of California and the Land of Obama ... Illinois.
In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S. According to FBI data, 20 percent of those — 1,157 of the 5,782 handgun murders — happened in Illinois and California, which have two of the toughest state gun control regimes in the entire country. And even though California and Illinois contain about 16 percent of the nation’s population, those two states are responsible for over 20 percent of the nation’s handgun murders.
You get no argument this guy was a terrorist. Label him, fry him, torture him ... he deserves it.
According to the article you link, he also was known for having a lot of hard drugs on him. Those are illegal, difficult to come by ... yet he still gets these drugs.
Terrorists aren't going to let laws get in their way.
Guns aren't hard to get. Pretty much anyone without a criminal background can go buy one. A buddy of mine at the time got a Mosberg shotgun right after he turned 18. There are plenty of psycho's that don't have criminal records barring them from getting guns in their late teens and early 20's. Criminals can buy them at private trade shows in 40 states with no required background checks. You gun nuts must enjoy having your head in the sand.
I enjoy shooting guns. When I was in college, we would go up in the mountains and set up empty liquor bottles to shoot. AR-15's, AK47's, 1911's. Shooting shit is fun. But the gun laws in this country are not working.
What's not working?
Crimes involving firearms make up 8% of all violent incidents (Bureau of Justice).
We have a scenario where a fucking crazy shoots up 9 innocent people, can you say the knife laws of China aren't working because some crazy sliced up a crowd?
Here's another stat:
11,000 people were murdered by a gun last year. If we cut the American population to represent just the adult population (approximately 15,000,000)... you have a .0008% chance of the gun laws failing you.
Wanting to rewrite the gun laws over the media hyperbole ... is like wanting to rewrite the health care laws because 10% of American's are not covered.
The facts don't back up anyone's anti-gun argument.
This entire thread is about emotion.
It's right where Obama want's us to be ... arguing irrationally on emotion.
I never said I thought the gun laws would directly affect me. It's a problem that criminals and mentally ill fucks can legally obtain a gun so easily. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that, but they do. Any 18 year old idiot without a felony can legally buy a shotgun. Any 21 year old without a felony can get a handgun. There are no mental evaluations required.
Please answer these questions.
Why do guns sold privately not have to go through the same procedures and regulations as those bought at a sporting goods store?
Since there is only a .0008% chance of gun laws failing means everything is fine? What would my chance be of a fatal car crash with a .15 BAC?
What is so bad about more thorough criminal background and mental health evaluations when purchasing a gun?
It's about making it tougher on criminals and the mentally unstable. It's not about ruining it for responsible gun owners.
You're making an irrational argument.
Once you hit .008%, which is a very generous percentage ... since I used just 15 million citizens in a country with a population of 300 million ... you're at zero.
The FBI reports there were 5.3 million crimes where a gun was visually present.
On the flip side, just shy of 1 million people report using a guy for self defense.
Every other comparable statistic ... BAC, 9/11 ... are straw man arguments.
I ask this, how do you know when a gun is sold privately? You can't regulate everything. You want to regulate a problem that statistically is zero. How do you get it better? Do you naively believe we can get to zero?
As a comparable state ... 8,000 people died from heroin overdose, another 7,000 died from cocaine. I do believe, those two items are more tightly regulated than guns.
Regulation doesn't stop crazy. In the case of the asshole in this thread, if he didn't have a gun he'd use a pipe bomb ... or a pressure cooker.
Guns aren't hard to get. Pretty much anyone without a criminal background can go buy one. A buddy of mine at the time got a Mosberg shotgun right after he turned 18. There are plenty of psycho's that don't have criminal records barring them from getting guns in their late teens and early 20's. Criminals can buy them at private trade shows in 40 states with no required background checks. You gun nuts must enjoy having your head in the sand.
I enjoy shooting guns. When I was in college, we would go up in the mountains and set up empty liquor bottles to shoot. AR-15's, AK47's, 1911's. Shooting shit is fun. But the gun laws in this country are not working.
What's not working?
Crimes involving firearms make up 8% of all violent incidents (Bureau of Justice).
We have a scenario where a fucking crazy shoots up 9 innocent people, can you say the knife laws of China aren't working because some crazy sliced up a crowd?
Here's another stat:
11,000 people were murdered by a gun last year. If we cut the American population to represent just the adult population (approximately 15,000,000)... you have a .0008% chance of the gun laws failing you.
Wanting to rewrite the gun laws over the media hyperbole ... is like wanting to rewrite the health care laws because 10% of American's are not covered.
The facts don't back up anyone's anti-gun argument.
This entire thread is about emotion.
It's right where Obama want's us to be ... arguing irrationally on emotion.
I never said I thought the gun laws would directly affect me. It's a problem that criminals and mentally ill fucks can legally obtain a gun so easily. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that, but they do. Any 18 year old idiot without a felony can legally buy a shotgun. Any 21 year old without a felony can get a handgun. There are no mental evaluations required.
Please answer these questions.
Why do guns sold privately not have to go through the same procedures and regulations as those bought at a sporting goods store?
Since there is only a .0008% chance of gun laws failing means everything is fine? What would my chance be of a fatal car crash with a .15 BAC?
What is so bad about more thorough criminal background and mental health evaluations when purchasing a gun?
It's about making it tougher on criminals and the mentally unstable. It's not about ruining it for responsible gun owners.
You're making an irrational argument.
Once you hit .008%, which is a very generous percentage ... since I used just 15 million citizens in a country with a population of 300 million ... you're at zero.
I don't entirely disagree, but using every adult is kind of retarded considering the majority of adults don't have guns. I know you are using ballpark numbers, but they are still very flawed.
The FBI reports there were 5.3 million crimes where a gun was visually present.
On the flip side, just shy of 1 million people report using a guy for self defense.
Every other comparable statistic ... BAC, 9/11 ... are straw man arguments.
Any argument that points out that there are laws created for unlikely events are straw man arguments? They aren't to be taken literally, but rather to show that small percentages do not always equal everything being fine.
I ask this, how do you know when a gun is sold privately? You can't regulate everything. You want to regulate a problem that statistically is zero. How do you get it better? Do you naively believe we can get to zero?
It's not statistically a zero. I'm not a law maker. To me, these arguments are similar to "We shouldn't fire Sark because who would you hire?" There are tons of way to make it tougher to sell a gun to a whacko. Do you naively believe that the gun laws couldn't possibly be more effective? Or do you believe that since you and others you know use guns responsibly means that things are perfectly fine?
As a comparable state ... 8,000 people died from heroin overdose, another 7,000 died from cocaine. I do believe, those two items are more tightly regulated than guns.
According to you, those are straw man arguments.
Regulation doesn't stop crazy. In the case of the asshole in this thread, if he didn't have a gun he'd use a pipe bomb ... or a pressure cooker.
You are correct. Regulation does not stop crazy. I still don't understand how making gun laws stricter would make things worse? I'm pretty sure certain it is harder to make an effective pipe bomb than pull a trigger.
Toppy, I know that you and others on this board love your guns, use them responsibly, and are not the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with everyone in this country. I still am not sure why stricter regulations would be such a bad thing? I don't believe it's irrational to try and take steps to prevent these tragedies from happening as often as they do.
This dude the other day was going to kill black people. He as a sick mother fuckera domestic terrorist who published a website that made violent threats against blacks and a criminal record (including drugs and criminal trespass) that should have red-flagged any gun purchase, no gun law would have stopped what happened.
When guns kill people, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. In 2008-2012, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides (defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen), according to the report -- a ratio of 38 to 1.
So you justify my numbers ... about 11k a year being killed by guns every year. Or less than overdose on drugs.
Knives killed about 1500 people a year. That's 10% of guns ... yet no anger.
A majority of murders come from handguns. Let's look at the two states who have the toughest gun control laws in the country The Socialist Republic of California and the Land of Obama ... Illinois.
In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S. According to FBI data, 20 percent of those — 1,157 of the 5,782 handgun murders — happened in Illinois and California, which have two of the toughest state gun control regimes in the entire country. And even though California and Illinois contain about 16 percent of the nation’s population, those two states are responsible for over 20 percent of the nation’s handgun murders.
You get no argument this guy was a terrorist. Label him, fry him, torture him ... he deserves it.
According to the article you link, he also was known for having a lot of hard drugs on him. Those are illegal, difficult to come by ... yet he still gets these drugs.
Terrorists aren't going to let laws get in their way.
Guns aren't hard to get. Pretty much anyone without a criminal background can go buy one. A buddy of mine at the time got a Mosberg shotgun right after he turned 18. There are plenty of psycho's that don't have criminal records barring them from getting guns in their late teens and early 20's. Criminals can buy them at private trade shows in 40 states with no required background checks. You gun nuts must enjoy having your head in the sand.
I enjoy shooting guns. When I was in college, we would go up in the mountains and set up empty liquor bottles to shoot. AR-15's, AK47's, 1911's. Shooting shit is fun. But the gun laws in this country are not working.
What's not working?
Crimes involving firearms make up 8% of all violent incidents (Bureau of Justice).
We have a scenario where a fucking crazy shoots up 9 innocent people, can you say the knife laws of China aren't working because some crazy sliced up a crowd?
Here's another stat:
11,000 people were murdered by a gun last year. If we cut the American population to represent just the adult population (approximately 15,000,000)... you have a .0008% chance of the gun laws failing you.
Wanting to rewrite the gun laws over the media hyperbole ... is like wanting to rewrite the health care laws because 10% of American's are not covered.
The facts don't back up anyone's anti-gun argument.
This entire thread is about emotion.
It's right where Obama want's us to be ... arguing irrationally on emotion.
I never said I thought the gun laws would directly affect me. It's a problem that criminals and mentally ill fucks can legally obtain a gun so easily. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that, but they do. Any 18 year old idiot without a felony can legally buy a shotgun. Any 21 year old without a felony can get a handgun. There are no mental evaluations required.
Please answer these questions.
Why do guns sold privately not have to go through the same procedures and regulations as those bought at a sporting goods store?
Since there is only a .0008% chance of gun laws failing means everything is fine? What would my chance be of a fatal car crash with a .15 BAC?
What is so bad about more thorough criminal background and mental health evaluations when purchasing a gun?
It's about making it tougher on criminals and the mentally unstable. It's not about ruining it for responsible gun owners.
You're making an irrational argument.
Once you hit .008%, which is a very generous percentage ... since I used just 15 million citizens in a country with a population of 300 million ... you're at zero.
I don't entirely disagree, but using every adult is kind of retarded considering the majority of adults don't have guns. I know you are using ballpark numbers, but they are still very flawed.
The FBI reports there were 5.3 million crimes where a gun was visually present.
On the flip side, just shy of 1 million people report using a guy for self defense.
Every other comparable statistic ... BAC, 9/11 ... are straw man arguments.
Any argument that points out that there are laws created for unlikely events are straw man arguments? They aren't to be taken literally, but rather to show that small percentages do not always equal everything being fine.
I ask this, how do you know when a gun is sold privately? You can't regulate everything. You want to regulate a problem that statistically is zero. How do you get it better? Do you naively believe we can get to zero?
It's not statistically a zero. I'm not a law maker. To me, these arguments are similar to "We shouldn't fire Sark because who would you hire?" There are tons of way to make it tougher to sell a gun to a whacko. Do you naively believe that the gun laws couldn't possibly be more effective? Or do you believe that since you and others you know use guns responsibly means that things are perfectly fine?
As a comparable state ... 8,000 people died from heroin overdose, another 7,000 died from cocaine. I do believe, those two items are more tightly regulated than guns.
According to you, those are straw man arguments.
Regulation doesn't stop crazy. In the case of the asshole in this thread, if he didn't have a gun he'd use a pipe bomb ... or a pressure cooker.
You are correct. Regulation does not stop crazy. I still don't understand how making gun laws stricter would make things worse? I'm pretty sure certain it is harder to make an effective pipe bomb than pull a trigger.
Toppy, I know that you and others on this board love your guns, use them responsibly, and are not the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with everyone in this country. I still am not sure why stricter regulations would be such a bad thing? I don't believe it's irrational to try and take steps to prevent these tragedies from happening as often as they do.
This dude the other day was going to kill black people. He as a sick mother fuckera domestic terrorist who published a website that made violent threats against blacks and a criminal record (including drugs and criminal trespass) that should have red-flagged any gun purchase, no gun law would have stopped what happened.
When guns kill people, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. In 2008-2012, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides (defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen), according to the report -- a ratio of 38 to 1.
So you justify my numbers ... about 11k a year being killed by guns every year. Or less than overdose on drugs.
Knives killed about 1500 people a year. That's 10% of guns ... yet no anger.
A majority of murders come from handguns. Let's look at the two states who have the toughest gun control laws in the country The Socialist Republic of California and the Land of Obama ... Illinois.
In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S. According to FBI data, 20 percent of those — 1,157 of the 5,782 handgun murders — happened in Illinois and California, which have two of the toughest state gun control regimes in the entire country. And even though California and Illinois contain about 16 percent of the nation’s population, those two states are responsible for over 20 percent of the nation’s handgun murders.
You get no argument this guy was a terrorist. Label him, fry him, torture him ... he deserves it.
According to the article you link, he also was known for having a lot of hard drugs on him. Those are illegal, difficult to come by ... yet he still gets these drugs.
Terrorists aren't going to let laws get in their way.
Guns aren't hard to get. Pretty much anyone without a criminal background can go buy one. A buddy of mine at the time got a Mosberg shotgun right after he turned 18. There are plenty of psycho's that don't have criminal records barring them from getting guns in their late teens and early 20's. Criminals can buy them at private trade shows in 40 states with no required background checks. You gun nuts must enjoy having your head in the sand.
I enjoy shooting guns. When I was in college, we would go up in the mountains and set up empty liquor bottles to shoot. AR-15's, AK47's, 1911's. Shooting shit is fun. But the gun laws in this country are not working.
What's not working?
Crimes involving firearms make up 8% of all violent incidents (Bureau of Justice).
We have a scenario where a fucking crazy shoots up 9 innocent people, can you say the knife laws of China aren't working because some crazy sliced up a crowd?
Here's another stat:
11,000 people were murdered by a gun last year. If we cut the American population to represent just the adult population (approximately 15,000,000)... you have a .0008% chance of the gun laws failing you.
Wanting to rewrite the gun laws over the media hyperbole ... is like wanting to rewrite the health care laws because 10% of American's are not covered.
The facts don't back up anyone's anti-gun argument.
This entire thread is about emotion.
It's right where Obama want's us to be ... arguing irrationally on emotion.
I never said I thought the gun laws would directly affect me. It's a problem that criminals and mentally ill fucks can legally obtain a gun so easily. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that, but they do. Any 18 year old idiot without a felony can legally buy a shotgun. Any 21 year old without a felony can get a handgun. There are no mental evaluations required.
Please answer these questions.
Why do guns sold privately not have to go through the same procedures and regulations as those bought at a sporting goods store?
Since there is only a .0008% chance of gun laws failing means everything is fine? What would my chance be of a fatal car crash with a .15 BAC?
What is so bad about more thorough criminal background and mental health evaluations when purchasing a gun?
It's about making it tougher on criminals and the mentally unstable. It's not about ruining it for responsible gun owners.
You're making an irrational argument.
Once you hit .008%, which is a very generous percentage ... since I used just 15 million citizens in a country with a population of 300 million ... you're at zero.
I don't entirely disagree, but using every adult is kind of retarded considering the majority of adults don't have guns. I know you are using ballpark numbers, but they are still very flawed.
The FBI reports there were 5.3 million crimes where a gun was visually present.
On the flip side, just shy of 1 million people report using a guy for self defense.
Every other comparable statistic ... BAC, 9/11 ... are straw man arguments.
Any argument that points out that there are laws created for unlikely events are straw man arguments? They aren't to be taken literally, but rather to show that small percentages do not always equal everything being fine.
I ask this, how do you know when a gun is sold privately? You can't regulate everything. You want to regulate a problem that statistically is zero. How do you get it better? Do you naively believe we can get to zero?
It's not statistically a zero. I'm not a law maker. To me, these arguments are similar to "We shouldn't fire Sark because who would you hire?" There are tons of way to make it tougher to sell a gun to a whacko. Do you naively believe that the gun laws couldn't possibly be more effective? Or do you believe that since you and others you know use guns responsibly means that things are perfectly fine?
As a comparable state ... 8,000 people died from heroin overdose, another 7,000 died from cocaine. I do believe, those two items are more tightly regulated than guns.
According to you, those are straw man arguments.
Regulation doesn't stop crazy. In the case of the asshole in this thread, if he didn't have a gun he'd use a pipe bomb ... or a pressure cooker.
You are correct. Regulation does not stop crazy. I still don't understand how making gun laws stricter would make things worse? I'm pretty sure certain it is harder to make an effective pipe bomb than pull a trigger.
Toppy, I know that you and others on this board love your guns, use them responsibly, and are not the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with everyone in this country. I still am not sure why stricter regulations would be such a bad thing? I don't believe it's irrational to try and take steps to prevent these tragedies from happening as often as they do.
This dude the other day was going to kill black people. He as a sick mother fuckera domestic terrorist who published a website that made violent threats against blacks and a criminal record (including drugs and criminal trespass) that should have red-flagged any gun purchase, no gun law would have stopped what happened.
When guns kill people, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. In 2008-2012, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides (defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen), according to the report -- a ratio of 38 to 1.
So you justify my numbers ... about 11k a year being killed by guns every year. Or less than overdose on drugs.
Knives killed about 1500 people a year. That's 10% of guns ... yet no anger.
A majority of murders come from handguns. Let's look at the two states who have the toughest gun control laws in the country The Socialist Republic of California and the Land of Obama ... Illinois.
In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S. According to FBI data, 20 percent of those — 1,157 of the 5,782 handgun murders — happened in Illinois and California, which have two of the toughest state gun control regimes in the entire country. And even though California and Illinois contain about 16 percent of the nation’s population, those two states are responsible for over 20 percent of the nation’s handgun murders.
You get no argument this guy was a terrorist. Label him, fry him, torture him ... he deserves it.
According to the article you link, he also was known for having a lot of hard drugs on him. Those are illegal, difficult to come by ... yet he still gets these drugs.
Terrorists aren't going to let laws get in their way.
The 16% to 20% isn't statistically significant. It's called "noise".
Guns aren't hard to get. Pretty much anyone without a criminal background can go buy one. A buddy of mine at the time got a Mosberg shotgun right after he turned 18. There are plenty of psycho's that don't have criminal records barring them from getting guns in their late teens and early 20's. Criminals can buy them at private trade shows in 40 states with no required background checks. You gun nuts must enjoy having your head in the sand.
I enjoy shooting guns. When I was in college, we would go up in the mountains and set up empty liquor bottles to shoot. AR-15's, AK47's, 1911's. Shooting shit is fun. But the gun laws in this country are not working.
What's not working?
Crimes involving firearms make up 8% of all violent incidents (Bureau of Justice).
We have a scenario where a fucking crazy shoots up 9 innocent people, can you say the knife laws of China aren't working because some crazy sliced up a crowd?
Here's another stat:
11,000 people were murdered by a gun last year. If we cut the American population to represent just the adult population (approximately 15,000,000)... you have a .0008% chance of the gun laws failing you.
Wanting to rewrite the gun laws over the media hyperbole ... is like wanting to rewrite the health care laws because 10% of American's are not covered.
The facts don't back up anyone's anti-gun argument.
This entire thread is about emotion.
It's right where Obama want's us to be ... arguing irrationally on emotion.
I never said I thought the gun laws would directly affect me. It's a problem that criminals and mentally ill fucks can legally obtain a gun so easily. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that, but they do. Any 18 year old idiot without a felony can legally buy a shotgun. Any 21 year old without a felony can get a handgun. There are no mental evaluations required.
Please answer these questions.
Why do guns sold privately not have to go through the same procedures and regulations as those bought at a sporting goods store?
Since there is only a .0008% chance of gun laws failing means everything is fine? What would my chance be of a fatal car crash with a .15 BAC?
What is so bad about more thorough criminal background and mental health evaluations when purchasing a gun?
It's about making it tougher on criminals and the mentally unstable. It's not about ruining it for responsible gun owners.
You're making an irrational argument.
Once you hit .008%, which is a very generous percentage ... since I used just 15 million citizens in a country with a population of 300 million ... you're at zero.
I don't entirely disagree, but using every adult is kind of retarded considering the majority of adults don't have guns. I know you are using ballpark numbers, but they are still very flawed.
The FBI reports there were 5.3 million crimes where a gun was visually present.
On the flip side, just shy of 1 million people report using a guy for self defense.
Every other comparable statistic ... BAC, 9/11 ... are straw man arguments.
Any argument that points out that there are laws created for unlikely events are straw man arguments? They aren't to be taken literally, but rather to show that small percentages do not always equal everything being fine.
I ask this, how do you know when a gun is sold privately? You can't regulate everything. You want to regulate a problem that statistically is zero. How do you get it better? Do you naively believe we can get to zero?
It's not statistically a zero. I'm not a law maker. To me, these arguments are similar to "We shouldn't fire Sark because who would you hire?" There are tons of way to make it tougher to sell a gun to a whacko. Do you naively believe that the gun laws couldn't possibly be more effective? Or do you believe that since you and others you know use guns responsibly means that things are perfectly fine?
As a comparable state ... 8,000 people died from heroin overdose, another 7,000 died from cocaine. I do believe, those two items are more tightly regulated than guns.
According to you, those are straw man arguments.
Regulation doesn't stop crazy. In the case of the asshole in this thread, if he didn't have a gun he'd use a pipe bomb ... or a pressure cooker.
You are correct. Regulation does not stop crazy. I still don't understand how making gun laws stricter would make things worse? I'm pretty sure certain it is harder to make an effective pipe bomb than pull a trigger.
Toppy, I know that you and others on this board love your guns, use them responsibly, and are not the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with everyone in this country. I still am not sure why stricter regulations would be such a bad thing? I don't believe it's irrational to try and take steps to prevent these tragedies from happening as often as they do.
This dude the other day was going to kill black people. He as a sick mother fuckera domestic terrorist who published a website that made violent threats against blacks and a criminal record (including drugs and criminal trespass) that should have red-flagged any gun purchase, no gun law would have stopped what happened.
When guns kill people, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. In 2008-2012, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides (defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen), according to the report -- a ratio of 38 to 1.
So you justify my numbers ... about 11k a year being killed by guns every year. Or less than overdose on drugs.
Knives killed about 1500 people a year. That's 10% of guns ... yet no anger.
A majority of murders come from handguns. Let's look at the two states who have the toughest gun control laws in the country The Socialist Republic of California and the Land of Obama ... Illinois.
In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S. According to FBI data, 20 percent of those — 1,157 of the 5,782 handgun murders — happened in Illinois and California, which have two of the toughest state gun control regimes in the entire country. And even though California and Illinois contain about 16 percent of the nation’s population, those two states are responsible for over 20 percent of the nation’s handgun murders.
You get no argument this guy was a terrorist. Label him, fry him, torture him ... he deserves it.
According to the article you link, he also was known for having a lot of hard drugs on him. Those are illegal, difficult to come by ... yet he still gets these drugs.
Terrorists aren't going to let laws get in their way.
The 16% to 20% isn't statistically significant. It's called "noise".
Is it noise that 20% of ALL handgun murders occur in two of the states with the toughest handgun laws?
The argument is that tougher regulations will reduce the statistically rate of zero lower. I am producing facts that dispute that hypothesis.
Internal boundaries are meaningless in most of the United States - there are no border controls between California and Arizona, or between Illinois and Kentucky.
The one state where there is a de facto border - Hawaii - that also has the among the most, if not the most stringent gun regulations in the country, has the lowest rate of firearm violence.
It is kind of hilarious that much of this bored can't seem to process those two simple facts
Internal boundaries are meaningless in most of the United States - there are no border controls between California and Arizona, or between Illinois and Kentucky.
The one state where there is a de facto border - Hawaii - that also has the among the most, if not the most stringent gun regulations in the country, has the lowest rate of firearm violence.
It is kind of hilarious that much of this bored can't seem to process those two simple facts
So you want to build walls between all the states?
I wonder if Hawaii has ever had a mass shooting? Like at Xerox office building.
I think that a change in regulation has to be enforceable. Indiana and Wisconsin are in Chicago's suburbs - it is too easy. The District of Columbia has among the nation's strictest gun laws. Virginia has among the nation's most lenient. Do you think that people in DC who want guns might take advantage of that?
I'm also a reality-based waterfowl. Obviously many regulatory regimes don't work. Hawaii's gun registry seems to have been more effective than any other regime used in this country.
Using a one-off like a mass shooting doesn't tell me that Hawaii's gun laws are ineffective. The overall firearm death rate in Hawaii which is the lowest in the US tells me that Hawaii's system works better than anything on the mainland. But yeah, change would need to be federal, since one mainland state doing things differently wouldn't matter if the state next door didn't follow along.
You act like there is no correlation between regulation and firearm deaths but the vast difference between the US and every other industrialized nation with better firearm regulation says otherwise.
I also think that Alaska is a special case and should probably have its own regime where guns are concerned - people NEED guns in Alaska in a way that they don't in the other 49
I think that a change in regulation has to be enforceable. Indiana and Wisconsin are in Chicago's suburbs - it is too easy. The District of Columbia has among the nation's strictest gun laws. Virginia has among the nation's most lenient. Do you think that people in DC who want guns might take advantage of that?
I'm also a reality-based waterfowl. Obviously many regulatory regimes don't work. Hawaii's gun registry seems to have been more effective than any other regime used in this country.
Using a one-off like a mass shooting doesn't tell me that Hawaii's gun laws are ineffective. The overall firearm death rate in Hawaii which is the lowest in the US tells me that they are.
You act like there is no correlation between regulation and firearm deaths but the vast difference between the US and every other industrialized nation with better firearm regulation says otherwise.
You really should dig deeper into your CNN analysis about the US vs. World in gun homicide rates.
Homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US. If taken literally, and there is significant evidence that in practice the actual adjustment is no where near this large, a simple comparison can be made. In 2012, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000, a total of 14,827. Arrests amounted to only 7,133. Using only people who were arrested (not just convicted) would lower the US murder rate to 2.26 per 100,000. More information on the adjustment for England and Wales is available here and it suggests that while many homicides are excluded it isn’t as large as it would appear (in 1997, the downward adjustment would be about 12 percent).
I think that a change in regulation has to be enforceable. Indiana and Wisconsin are in Chicago's suburbs - it is too easy. The District of Columbia has among the nation's strictest gun laws. Virginia has among the nation's most lenient. Do you think that people in DC who want guns might take advantage of that?
I'm also a reality-based waterfowl. Obviously many regulatory regimes don't work. Hawaii's gun registry seems to have been more effective than any other regime used in this country.
Using a one-off like a mass shooting doesn't tell me that Hawaii's gun laws are ineffective. The overall firearm death rate in Hawaii which is the lowest in the US tells me that Hawaii's system works better than anything on the mainland. But yeah, change would need to be federal, since one mainland state doing things differently wouldn't matter if the state next door didn't follow along.
You act like there is no correlation between regulation and firearm deaths but the vast difference between the US and every other industrialized nation with better firearm regulation says otherwise.
I also think that Alaska is a special case and should probably have its own regime where guns are concerned - people NEED guns in Alaska in a way that they don't in the other 49
Using a one off shooting in South Carolina does not tell me that South Carolina's gun laws are ineffective.
How are the two different?
There are more handgun murders in California than South Carolina and North Carolina ... combined. Yet Cali has more stringent regulations.
Just ban guns. If you ban guns no bad guys will have acces to them since they are illegal! It's so simple.
Plus only the government will have them and they have our best interests in mind. I trust them with guns more than anybody!
I must have missed where someone said we should ban all guns. And I'm sure your artillery would really come in handy if the US government came after you.
Just ban guns. If you ban guns no bad guys will have acces to them since they are illegal! It's so simple.
Plus only the government will have them and they have our best interests in mind. I trust them with guns more than anybody!
I must have missed where someone said we should ban all guns. And I'm sure your artillery would really come in handy if the US government came after you.
I think that a change in regulation has to be enforceable. Indiana and Wisconsin are in Chicago's suburbs - it is too easy. The District of Columbia has among the nation's strictest gun laws. Virginia has among the nation's most lenient. Do you think that people in DC who want guns might take advantage of that?
I'm also a reality-based waterfowl. Obviously many regulatory regimes don't work. Hawaii's gun registry seems to have been more effective than any other regime used in this country.
Using a one-off like a mass shooting doesn't tell me that Hawaii's gun laws are ineffective. The overall firearm death rate in Hawaii which is the lowest in the US tells me that they are.
You act like there is no correlation between regulation and firearm deaths but the vast difference between the US and every other industrialized nation with better firearm regulation says otherwise.
You really should dig deeper into your CNN analysis about the US vs. World in gun homicide rates.
Homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US. If taken literally, and there is significant evidence that in practice the actual adjustment is no where near this large, a simple comparison can be made. In 2012, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000, a total of 14,827. Arrests amounted to only 7,133. Using only people who were arrested (not just convicted) would lower the US murder rate to 2.26 per 100,000. More information on the adjustment for England and Wales is available here and it suggests that while many homicides are excluded it isn’t as large as it would appear (in 1997, the downward adjustment would be about 12 percent).
If your argument is "don't trust your lying eyes, England's murder rate is comparable to America's," expect to be met with scorn.
So I'm over there in England, you know, trying to get news about the [L.A.] riots... and all these Brit people are trying to sympathize with me... 'Oh Bill, crime is horrible. Bill, if it's any consolation crime is horrible here, too.' ...Shut up. This is Hobbitown and I am Bilbo Hicks, Okay? This is a land of fairies and elves. You do not have crime like we have crime, but I appreciate you trying to be, you know, Diplomatic. You gotta see English crime. It's hilarious, you don't know if you're reading the front page or the comic section over there. I swear to God. I read an article - front page of the paper - one day, in England: 'Yesterday, some Hooligans knocked over a dustbin in Shaftesbury.' Wooooo... 'The hooligans are loose! The hooligans are loose! What if they become roughians? I would hate to be a dustbin in Shaftesbury tonight.”
Cars are made for transportation. Knives are made for slicing and dicing.
Killers can use many types of tangible objects to carry out their killings such as an Xbox console or a knife or a car or even their fist or (insert trillions of other objects).
So should we regulate people's fists or the sale of knives or all of the other objects that people can use? Not in this country. So stop using this argument.
People kill people. Guns are used to kill. Guns are made to kill. Therefore they must be regulated.
Comments
Knives killed about 1500 people a year. That's 10% of guns ... yet no anger.
A majority of murders come from handguns. Let's look at the two states who have the toughest gun control laws in the country The Socialist Republic of California and the Land of Obama ... Illinois.
In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S. According to FBI data, 20 percent of those — 1,157 of the 5,782 handgun murders — happened in Illinois and California, which have two of the toughest state gun control regimes in the entire country. And even though California and Illinois contain about 16 percent of the nation’s population, those two states are responsible for over 20 percent of the nation’s handgun murders.
You get no argument this guy was a terrorist. Label him, fry him, torture him ... he deserves it.
According to the article you link, he also was known for having a lot of hard drugs on him. Those are illegal, difficult to come by ... yet he still gets these drugs.
Terrorists aren't going to let laws get in their way.
Timothy McVeigh's ghost agrees
The argument is that tougher regulations will reduce the statistically rate of zero lower. I am producing facts that dispute that hypothesis.
The one state where there is a de facto border - Hawaii - that also has the among the most, if not the most stringent gun regulations in the country, has the lowest rate of firearm violence.
It is kind of hilarious that much of this bored can't seem to process those two simple facts
I wonder if Hawaii has ever had a mass shooting? Like at Xerox office building.
I'm also a reality-based waterfowl. Obviously many regulatory regimes don't work. Hawaii's gun registry seems to have been more effective than any other regime used in this country.
Using a one-off like a mass shooting doesn't tell me that Hawaii's gun laws are ineffective. The overall firearm death rate in Hawaii which is the lowest in the US tells me that Hawaii's system works better than anything on the mainland. But yeah, change would need to be federal, since one mainland state doing things differently wouldn't matter if the state next door didn't follow along.
You act like there is no correlation between regulation and firearm deaths but the vast difference between the US and every other industrialized nation with better firearm regulation says otherwise.
I also think that Alaska is a special case and should probably have its own regime where guns are concerned - people NEED guns in Alaska in a way that they don't in the other 49
Homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US.
If taken literally, and there is significant evidence that in practice the actual adjustment is no where near this large, a simple comparison can be made. In 2012, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000, a total of 14,827. Arrests amounted to only 7,133. Using only people who were arrested (not just convicted) would lower the US murder rate to 2.26 per 100,000. More information on the adjustment for England and Wales is available here and it suggests that while many homicides are excluded it isn’t as large as it would appear (in 1997, the downward adjustment would be about 12 percent).
crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
How are the two different?
There are more handgun murders in California than South Carolina and North Carolina ... combined. Yet Cali has more stringent regulations.
Plus only the government will have them and they have our best interests in mind. I trust them with guns more than anybody!
Cars are made for transportation. Knives are made for slicing and dicing.
Killers can use many types of tangible objects to carry out their killings such as an Xbox console or a knife or a car or even their fist or (insert trillions of other objects).
So should we regulate people's fists or the sale of knives or all of the other objects that people can use? Not in this country. So stop using this argument.
People kill people. Guns are used to kill. Guns are made to kill. Therefore they must be regulated.