Gunman killed neighbors, child with AR-15-style rifle, sheriff says

Gun show is one place where private citizens can sell guns, but it doesn't have to be at a gun show, - it can take place anywhere.

 

You side with them (and the mentally insane) every time you argue to make it easier for them to arm themselves (which is pretty much all you ever do).

 

How true. It could even be in @Turtledude or @TOG 6 backyards'. And since they wouldn't run a backround check on the buyers that showed up, they'd happily
let the sale go through because they "didn't know" that the buyers were felons.

 

Well, perhaps the notion first needs to be established that guns, and aside from baseball bats, nothing else on your list is a toy. A bicycle I guess could be. Or rather, the flip that a bit, are guns toys or sacred tools to protect freedom? Can they be both? I would say no. In fact, I would say they are neither.

A gun a weapon, that's all it is. So when you put more weapons into more hands, weapons that are incredibly efficient at taking life, it makes total sense more life will be taken. This specific incident is an example of exactly that. A man bought a gun for the wrong reasons and used it for the wrong reasons. Now we can say no law would have prevented this and that may be accurate at the end of the day, but if we limit the people who can own such weapons, we might find, like other countries that do this, we have fewer deaths from guns as a result.

So back to kindergarten wisdom, if a certain toy causes harm, maybe the class shouldn't be able to play with it willy nilly, unsupervised and without restriction. Perhaps that's a better way to communicate the sentiment?

 

Is there a minimum house size and certain occupation that is the dividing line between simplistic bliss and the more elite class of bliss you perceive yourself to be a member of?

 

Says he who refuse to understand he was proven wrong.

We're still waiting for your response:

My statement:
The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement so the people will have access to weapons suitable for service in said "well-regulated militia"
Rifles designed for semi-automatic fire of military grade ammo( very high velocity) with a large magazine capacity - perfect for killing people, not deer - seems to fit this bill pretty well.
Can you provide a better example?

 

The US, 1993-2014, say otherwise.
# guns up, # deaths from gunfire, down.
How did that happen?

A man illegally in the US illegally bought a gun for the illegal reasons and used it for the illegal reasons.
What do you apparently learn from this?
We need fewer people to legally own firearms.

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It would help to use the correct analogy.
When Timmy misuses his toy, he gets it taken away.
The rest of the class gets to keep theirs, until they misuse them.

 

In what was I proven wrong ? YOU said the militia is “regulated by federal law”. I said , then the feds can keep track of the weapons that are issued or sold. Agreed !

What's your point about the "Rifles designed for semi-automatic fire" ? That they are designed for military application ? Sure ! We agree on that.

 

delete

 

Put down your animal crackers and sippy cup, and pay attention:

A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks mandated by federal law.
Thus, there is no loophole.

The term you're looking for:
Non liquet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_liquet

The above is, you, proven wrong.
And you refuse to understand this.
Thus, the irony of your statement.

Yes, I know.
Now then:
The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement so the people will have access to weapons suitable for service in said "well-regulated militia"
Can you provide a better example of such a weapon than rifles designed for semi-automatic fire of military grade ammo( very high velocity) with a large magazine capacity - rifles perfect for killing people, not deer?

 

Sure, but criminals, mentally insane, children, junkies etc do not fit in the "well-regulated militia". Able bodied, law abiding, trained citizens do fit in.

Its actually very easy, and perfectly legal, because they are not mandated in private sales. I could sell all my guns to a private buyer and there is no requirement for me to run background checks, or immigration verifications.

 

This response has nothing to do with my question
I'll ask differently:
The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement so the people will have access to weapons suitable for service in said "well-regulated militia"
That being the case, can you provide an example of a firearm better protected by the constitution than a rifle designed for semi-automatic fire of military grade ammo( very high velocity) with a large magazine capacity - a rifle perfect for killing people, not deer?

A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
That they are not mandated on private sales proves there is no loophole.
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks which ARE mandated by federal law; as such, there is no loophole in this law.

 

No, they didn't fall over that entire time, they fell from 1993 until about 2000. You know what happened in that time frame? The Federal Assault weapons ban...

The driver in the data was that homicides fell in the US from 1993 to about 2000 or so where they bottomed out and stayed at that level for a while. But now you're engaging in the climate versus weather debate. Gun ownership has almost always gone up every year since about the mid 80's and in that time, firearm DEATHS, not homicides, have over all gone up.

Now, I'm not saying the Assault Weapons ban caused the decrease, what I'm saying is, before you have a gotcha moment, you should take a look at the bigger picture and dig further into the data. I don't think there's evidence to say the Assault weapons ban caused the decrease anymore than you can conclude more guns caused it. Because crime and gun ownership probably don't have the same correlation as availability of guns with minimal restrictions and gun deaths. Those are very different things.

And of course you fail to answer how this happens.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Well if it helps, I didn't make the kindergarten analogy, someone else did. And I didn't say it was accurate either, but understanding nuance takes effort, I know.

That said, the questions you actually need to answer are: No news article I just googled and read, which was several, says he bought the gun illegally, so how did you arrive at conclusion? Let's say you're accurate, how did he acquire the gun illegally? Let's say you are incorrect, are you saying illegal immigrants should not be allowed to own a gun? Why not? If people legally acquire a gun and then take lives with it illegally, how can we trust anyone with such easy killing power without at least trying to minimize the damage to society? How would owning fewer guns matter to most gun owners? Are guns toys in your eyes? And lastly, how does anything you say refute what the data shows above, that unrestricted access to gun leads to more deaths from guns?

 

There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". That's just another anti-gun lie.

Stop repeating a lie.

 

Murder numbers were going down before the gun ban and continued to go down after the gun ban. The gun ban did nothing to affect murder stats.

 

In the 17-page opinion, written by Judge Kevin Newsom and joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch and Andrew Brasher. “But consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and history, illegal immigrants do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. The law’s ban on firearm possession by illegal aliens does not ‘infringe’ the right that the Second Amendment embodies.”

If he was here illegally, which he was, he is not allowed to purchase a firearm. Therefore he acquired it illegally.

 

Looks to me like they fell 1994-2014.
What happened to the number of guns, 1993-2014?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...k-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/

Ok. So?

Did it?



https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/FirearmInjurySlides_WYCD_May21.pdf

I didn't claim the increase in the number of guns caused the decrease in gun deaths.
I said the number of guns going up while the number of deaths going down torpedoes your argument that "when you put more weapons into more hands, weapons that are incredibly efficient at taking life, it makes total sense more life will be taken"

Your concession accepted.

By breaking the law.

Federal law prohibits those here illegally from possessing a firearm.

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment is no long subject to means-end tests.
Thus your question is invalid.

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo proter hoc.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.

 

Yes please do take the time to watch Al Jazeera an Arabic propaganda outlet.

She claims they made a video "proving" that most justifiable self-defense shootings in the USA are fake.

It's a big conspiracy you see. The news media reporting on the cases must be in on it as well as the police and the court system and they must even have the hospitals in on the big conspiracy.

Because all of that makes logical sense.

 

Illegal immigrants are not allowed to own guns so that means if he had a gun he had it illegally. There is no question about that

 

Again, nuance. This is firearm HOMICIDES. Not deaths. The two are different. If you need definitions, let me know or just google it. Also, how do you explain the increases in homicides in 2002 and 2003? Or 2005 or 20012? If gun ownership was rising and your premise is there is not correlation, you need to explain those anomalies in the data. I already explained mine, crime, which homicide is, is far less dependent on ease of gun ownership. To your point, criminals can find a way to get guns that circumvent any law. Gun DEATHS, however, are MORE dependent upon ease of access. That includes more than just homicides, a concept you seem incapable of comprehending.

Here is a different picture covering that same time period. You'll try and Latin your way out of gun suicides being considered, but they are gun deaths.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Federal law prohibits those here illegally from possessing a firearm.[/quote]

So how did he manage, as someone who has been deported multiple times, to come into possession or maintain possession of a fire arm?

Every law should be weighed against ethics and justice. That's the purpose of any law. The second amendment does provide a means-end test, it's called the first 11 words of it which you choose to ignore. But you will continue to ignore them because for now the Supreme court chooses to. One day they won't anymore. Then you'll find them to partisan hacks because you disagree with them. And suddenly you'll be taling about how "wrong" the supreme court is. That will be a hilarious day for me.

No, I've demonstrated it over and over multiple times with you, you just won't hear it. You are content to...well I'm not sure what. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So your purpose in responding to me is as pointless as you are regurgitating incorrect conclusions over and over.

 

Agreed, but how did he come to own it then? Did he make it himself...?

 

He came to possess it by some illegal means evidently

 

He broke the law.
If you're willing to break the law, you have easy access to just about everything.

 

You're not answering the question and you know why you aren't answering it. Where did he get the gun from?

 

So you're saying there's no chance he bought it from someone privately?