Gun Control needs to be instituted

Nothing in your post negates what I said, as your fallacious appeals to emotion do not sway rational, reasoned people.

But, if you want to discuss numbers:
Yesterday, in the US, ~1100 firearms were used to commit a violent crime.
How may were not?

 

Be my guest, and get it changed then. The chances of success, even if you could get it passed by 2/3rds of the Congress, is that you will never get 38 States to go along. Should it turn out that a miracle happens and you also manage to pull that off, I would argue that such a right is implied by the 9th Amendment, and the historical precedent of having little to no gun control for centuries.

If it ever comes down to it, I will happily be the named plaintiff in just such a case, which should at the very least delay any laws that would have previously been prohibited by the 2nd by at least a decade, and considering what the current Court has already ruled in Bruen, I would likely win. In that event, we'd have the protections of the 2A despite it having been repealed.

Neat, eh?

 

Don’t have to

I am basing my input on the recommendations from the AAP

 

Not the point

it is the rotten apple - doesn’t matter if there is only one - that is enough and the question becomes - how do you reduce that number?

 

But who are “the bastards” and how do we identify them?

 

I agree totally that the "chances of success getting 38 states to go along" is minimal or non-existent. Nonetheless, the other option is to allow things to continue as they are and that is much worse. As such, "trying" to get enough people involved and in agreement that gun control is a necessity" needs to be done. If you don't try it is a 100% a guaranteed loss. Miracles have occurred in this world and they could happen again.

<Mod Edit>

 

That's why the Leftists are pushing the defund the police agenda. It's so they can use it to fuel the 2A abolition plan.

Anyone who would sacrifice their own countrymen for a political agenda is a real piece of ****.

 

Your talk about "fallacious appeal to emotion" suggests you have no emotion. Evidently, if your kid sister, your child, or someone in your family gets killed in a mass shooting, you will feel nothing and explain it away as "I am not emotional. Guns are no problem, it is the people using them that is the problem". Nonetheless, the truth of that scenario is that someone in your family was killed with no reason and they will no longer be around.

Fallacious appeal to emotion, eh?

Wow, and wow again.

 

If a member of my family is killed in a mass shooting, I'm going to blame the shooter, not the gun.

Just like if a member of my family is killed in a ramming attack with a vehicle, I'm going to blame the driver, not the vehicle.

 

and life has shown all of us that it is those that defend the use of guns are often the bastards themselves.

 

Totally untrue...lol

 

thanks for proving what I have said for years-you gun banners don't hate criminals who use guns, you hate honest people who own guns because many of us vote against the creeping cancer of collectivism and the swill of socialism that the gun banning left embraces

 

Oh, and don't forget, the bastards are not thinking this out farther than their noses. My broken heart.

 

devastated you are, I am sure!!

 

Whatever will I do?

 

But your posts are often based on incorrect definitions of common words! How can you claim your opinions are correct when they are based on incorrect definitions of words?

So much of what you post is unsubstantiated opinions or opinions easily demonstrated to be incorrect. Yet you speak of analysis of fact, while you demonstrate your posts are not based on fact at all.

 

For the majority of cases it’s quite simple. You use logic and reason applied to readily available information.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles...masses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-firearms-offenders

Instead of applying logic to available information we do these things instead.

We have laws against straw purchases and lying on forms (4473). It’s 10 years prison and a $250,000 fine.

But here is how we enforce the law. By prosecuting 0.01% of offenses!

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-new...d-despite-crackdown-on-illegal-guns?_amp=true

Then there is the problem we are seeing now with non-prosecution of felonious acts using firearms.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...-in-deadly-gang-related-gunfight/2628059/?amp

People who do get arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced do not end up serving their sentence. Sometimes only half of the sentence is served. Seldom is over 85% of the sentence served. And then it’s 17 months average until their next prosecuted offense. Not their next offense, their next prosecuted offense.

I propose enforcing current law for once and see how it works to reduce firearm violence. With all the available information we have on inverse correlation between more firearm law and reduced firearm violence let’s test current law before adding more.

Let’s use logic and reason and abandon appeal to emotion fallacy.

 

In a debate or a critical comment, the debater would show data and proof to support his/her contention.

You say "incorrect definitions of common words" but you offer no examples.

You say " unsubstantiated opinion that can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect" but you do not show any of the "opinions" of mine that can be proven to be incorrect.

You say that I "speak of analysis of fact while demonstrating that they are not based on facts at all" but you show no opinions of mine that you can prove to be incorrect.

I will tell you that each and every one of the OP's that I have put up, I have included links to data, statistics, and analysis-by-others that support the OP. I have yet to see you prove any of those being incorrect.

It is easy to criticize with words but to be pair attention to, you need to prove your points. Do so!!!!

 

Provide your definition of vigilantism. Then we can proceed.

As for your diatribe on evidence I suggest you read post #567. You will not find anyone on PF who uses more evidence as basis for posting than I.

 

and yet with all those facts, you cannot refute the two most important facts:

over the last thirty years, millions of Americans now legally carry firearms in public-something that was not true in the Clinton administration, and 100 million or more new firearms were introduced into circulation including at least 20 million AR 15 type rifles and at least three times more semi automatic "high capacity " (LOL) handguns and yet the rate of violent crime has DECREASED

 

Vigilantism = the act of preventing, investigating and punishing perceived offenses and crimes without legal authority.

I do not know why you felt the need to post the second paragraph here, given that you have not done that with ME!

Now that you have the definition of vigilantism that I use, prove your point about my giving incorrect opinion.

 

Hi, Lucky,

Just a quick response so that you won't think I've abandoned our debate and simply 'evaporated' as some posters do when they have nothing left to offer.

It is clear to me now that I will not be able to express myself freely in this thread, and so continuing here will be futile. It is not (NOT) because of anything you said, or because of any opinion you expressed. I'll just let it go at that, for I have no other choice but to construct some denatured rejoinder that communicates nothing but 'echo-chamber' fare. I'll spare both of us anything as tiresome as that... thus, I 'quit the field' and you win the argument by default. This ain't my first 'rodeo'.

All the best to you if you elect to marshal your resources in an effort to expunge or amend the 2nd Amendment... it will prove to be a herculean task....

 

I guess you missed the part about the UK having 1/5 our homicide rate and nearly double our poverty rate….it seems those in poverty are unarmed. Here, anyone can get a gun and all the ammo they can afford. I predict you will continue to rationalize away the obvious.

Wow, the nuclear arms race is a good thing? How do you feel about any country getting nuclear arms? Would that make the world safer? You’re okay with South Korea, Iran, Pakistan having nuclear weapons? That’s why we need arms control to prevent bad actors from arming themselves and making the world less safe.

"Think it through"? I’ve noticed you have a problem with that, like the idea that Democrats are using Blacks which leads to the conclusion you think Blacks are naïve idiots. Now you think easier gun availability will lead to more good people with guns will solve the problem of more bad people with guns. That would only mean an escalation and a less safe society (which we already lead the developed world in), but hey, we wouldn’t have all those pesky gun laws and that is what you want.

 

19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN):

• United States — 288
• Mexico — 8
• South Africa — 6
• Nigeria & Pakistan — 4
• Afghanistan — 3
• Brazil, Canada, France — 2
• Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1