Gun Control needs to be instituted

The police are not everywhere.

Some people choose to arm themselves for protection in those times when the police are not present.

Unconstitutional. There is no justification for outlawing rifles. Plus it would impede self defense.

You forget that we are not serfs and you are not our lord. We do not have to have you agree that we need something before we are allowed to have it.

So long as you have no reason for outlawing something, we have the right to have it if we so choose.

Pistols do not punch through Kevlar like rifles do.

It isn't.

It makes no difference whether someone is murdered with a gun versus murdered with a different kind of weapon.

 

Fraudulent research, given the way VPC lies all the time.

For the most part it shouldn't be reigned in.

But it would be good to set up a system where suicidal people can voluntarily and temporarily hand in their guns for safekeeping.

 

The place isn't the same without you. The quality of the debate has slipped without your arguments.

 

So, let me get this straight using what you said in this post.

"we should do nothing as there is no problem". This is our Constitutional right (own guns) and it does not matter if 1, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1 million or even half of the population of the U.S. people are killed by guns. What matters is that our Constitution rights be maintained. Is that correct? there are no limits to the amount of deaths that we should allow before we do something, correct?

 

You mean to ask:
How many people would I kill to protect my rights under the Constitution?
The only sound answer:
All of them.

 

They didn't like the fact I knew the rules better than they did so they would make up violations and retroactively apply them. I got banned for asking one of the far leftist moron mods if I could appeal a bullshit infraction. When I did I was given 20 points. The place was being held hostage by a DM and later mod who has dementia and was a sociopath to begin with. Thanks

yeppers and you seem to ignore a key fact=every "solution" you proffer to do something about the problem you pretend to care about, won't do squat to alleviate it.

 

Please clarify.
What "...thousands to be killed/sacrificed" are you talking about?

Also, I think that you're mistaken about how frequently AR-15s have been used for self defense.


"The Largest-Ever Survey of American Gun Owners Finds That Defensive Use of Firearms Is Common"
https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-l...he respondents,cited defense outside the home.

EXCERPT "Two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used such rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home. Yet politicians who want to ban these rifles insist they are good for nothing but mass murder." CONTINUED


I lived in a high crime, inner-city neighborhood because it was the only old house that I could afford and was only a few blocks away from my blacksmith shop.
I've already written that being armed saved me 3 times from blatantly hostile, armed individuals.

Thanks,

 

I wasn't looking for a reply so much as I was hoping that you would come to understand that your position is so vague that I have no idea whether I support it or oppose it.

Perhaps. But I think the better alternative would have been to prevent him from being bullied in the first place, and also to give him the help that he so desperately needed.

Each gun has a mass and a volume. It would be hard to carry too many of them.

They must have been small and light.

Let's see some evidence that laws against full auto weapons are not being enforced.

But if that's true, the solution might just be to start enforcing them.

That's the fault of the gun control movement. They are the ones who rejected the notion of Strict Scrutiny for gun control.

I don't see any problem.

Except for suicides of course. It would be nice to see some anti-suicide measures that did not violate the Second Amendment.

 

Well, yes.

If our freedom resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, it would still be worth it.

But do note that our freedom does NOT result in the loss of thousands of lives.

I say Fake News.

Let's see some evidence that assault weapons can be purchased easily.

Now you're taking the position of the NRA. Bravo!

Well, correct as far as everything that you said in your summary here. But it should also be noted that guns are not actually causing any deaths.

 

How many times do I have to repeat myself.

I am NOT against guns. I am NOT against people owning them.

What I am against is the AMOUNT and the TYPE of guns that are allowed to be bought. I am against certain TYPE of people owning them.

I am against we being the #1 country in the world in those categories (killings, mass killings, mass killings of children, all with GUNS) in comparison with countries that are like us.

What is wrong with that? What is wrong with people like you that can't understand what I am saying?

I was a COP for 4 years and I understand the need for guns. I have been shot at and I have shot at people. I am against the numbers of gun deaths in the U.S. Do you understand that?

 

It depends. If you are depriving everyone of weapon types that they have the right to have, that's a problem.

If you are depriving people of guns when they should not be so deprived, that's a problem.

Some of your comments are on the vague side. It is hard to agree or disagree when we are not sure of the details.

 

I can only respond by saying that you are not well informed. Can I suggest you start using Google?

 

Evidently you did not answer my question. Is there any amount of dead people that would make you change your mind? If your children and your wife were killed in a mass shooting in school, would you still feel the same way? If half of the population of the U.S. was killed with guns by the other half, would you still say that our rights should be respected NO MATTER WHAT? At what point is the end result (saving lives) important to you? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to keep the freedoms YOU believe in?

Are you willing to sacrifice YOUR OWN LIFE and those of all your loved ones to maintain that right for OTHERS? (this is an important question I would like you to answer).

 

They must hand out handbooks at the meetings. I've heard the same rationalizations repeated many times.

 

Your recall needs updated.

 

Re:

I say the same thing over and over again but I still hear the same hare brained schemes, meaningless appeals to emotion (It's always: "...for the children"), inflated "statistics" and false comparisons.

For starters, the US is not world leader in homicides. El Salvador is.
Yes, I know that you said: "... countries like us." but the "developed" countries you have in mind are not at all like the US.
For clarification, please see: (1)
Actually, there are over 60 countries that have higher homicide rates than the US (2) and a complete ban on private ownership of "assault weapons"
So, we already have proof that complete bans on "assault weapons" do not keep people from killing each other at a higher rate than the US
You won't hear these facts from the wealthy anti gun lobbies or our MSM that constantly parrot their lies to a gullible US audience.

Re:

Of course I understand, everyone I know is opposed to America's unacceptable homicide rate. The only people who can barely hide their secret glee at school shootings are those gun ban lobbies who profit from and exploit dead children to the fullest extent possible.

While you have not been specific, it sounds like you want to ban civilian ownership of semi-auto rifles but, historically, when that fails, "assault weapon" banners will want to ban more guns and the homicides somehow continue to climb as criminals ignore the new gun laws as much as they ignore existing gun laws.

The only way to significantly lower our unacceptable homicide rate is by significantly upgrading America's grossly underfunded mental health system so that it is more accessible and affordable.
Not only would upgrading our mental health system lower our homicide rate, it would also lessen the number of suicides that occur in America.

When I went into the US Army over 50 years ago, I had to take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from: "...all enemies, foreign and domestic"
I did not take that oath lightly and do not recall an "expiration date" so I feel like I must oppose the further evisceration of the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks,



(1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"

https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only...political thinking,with fewer guns per capita.

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world.

They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED



(2). "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

As I have stated many times before, your solution is not a doable one. Upgrading our mental health system requires too much money, organization, and agreement between the parties that it becomes an impossibility. Restrictions on guns have been imposed on other nations and it has worked. We need to do the same here.

 

a category that I am sure will continue to expand. If you think the government can ban some types of common firearms that are rarely used for crime, you have to agree that the government can ban every firearm. Your posts appear to be more against guns rarely used in crime than against criminals

 

If we never fix the problem then it is inevitable that unhappy people will continue to lash out against society.

Should police officers be prevented from carrying more than one backup gun?

That would only be possible with small and lightweight guns. There is no way for someone to carry 23 rifles.

I did not see anything in the article saying that laws regarding full-auto weapons are not being enforced.

I did not see anything on Google saying that laws regarding full-auto weapons are not being enforced.

I am not aware of any failure to enforce laws regarding full auto weapons.

Those laws have actually been in place for close to 90 years.

OK, but the gun control movement still opposes Strict Scrutiny.

I don't see it as a problem that the Republicans oppose violations of the Second Amendment.

Not without abolishing democracy.

I doubt that any data contradicts my belief that there is no problem.

That is unlikely. But if it is true then it should be easy enough to provide evidence showing that my belief is in error.

So, is there any such evidence?

No. Freedom is everything. There is no point to existence without freedom.

Yes.

Of course.

Why would it even matter if the killings involved guns versus some other kind of a weapon??

Gun control isn't even about saving lives.

But even if it was, freedom would still be the most important thing.

All life in the entire universe.

But do note that this is not a matter of saving lives in the first place.

Gun control is only about trying to violate people's civil liberties for no reason. It has nothing to do with trying to save lives.

Sure.

This failure to help people who need it is why we continue to have massacres in the US.

It has worked in achieving the intended goal of abolishing freedom. It certainly has not achieved anything else.

We will never abolish freedom in the US.

 

If forcing people to get rid of their guns worked I'd destroy mine right now.

 

People who love freedom and civil liberties will likely always express support for freedom and civil liberties when they are asked about it.

Do you have any evidence that Switzerland does not hand out full-auto rifles to members of the Swiss militia?

Do you have any evidence that Switzerland does not allow recreational gun use?

 

Re:

There are already very strict restrictions on firearms that are simply unenforced and apparently are not obeyed by criminals. Repeatedly doing something that is a proven failure and expecting different results is one definition of insanity.

Re:

Somehow, those European countries with lower homicide rates have managed to establish affordable and accessible mental health care systems and that's why their homicide rate is lower. It's not the stricter gun laws that are responsible for the lower homicide rates because criminals, as you know, don't obey laws.

I disagree that upgrading our mental health system: "...requires too much money, organization, and agreement..." and am surprised to hear that effective measures at saving lives (yes "the children") is suddenly too costly and troublesome.

I worked in the mental health field for about 10 years as a Psychiatric Case Worker. First, I worked on a large, inner-city Emergency Psychiatric Unit and attempted to treat everyone from manic, homicidal sociopaths to patients who were suicidal and prone to self harm.
Next, I worked in the Juvenile Justice system with emotionally disturbed juvenile offenders from severely dysfunctional families.

I can't begin to express how frustrating it was to see the efforts I put into treating patients / clients thwarted by lack of funding. I lost track of the times I paid for books, activities, sports equipment etc that I felt were important for the progress of individuals on my case load.

Finally, if you really want to see America's homicide rate drop, we must bring America's mental health system in line with those of the "developed"(1) countries.
We can't afford not to.


Thanks,




(1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only...political thinking,with fewer guns per capita.

 

"First they came for the "assault weapons", and I did not speak out—

Because I did not own an "assault weapon".

Then they came for the handguns, and I did not speak out—

Because I did not own a handgun.

Then they came for the rifles and I did not speak out—

Because I did not own a rifle

Then they came for the shotguns —and then I learned what "common sense" gun control "for the children" really meant."

(Apologies to Martin Niemöller)

------------------------------------------

As you already know, this "assault weapons" ban is just another Trojan horse.


Thanks,