Why many gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have guns

More emotional baggage and bear poking. It's really all you guys have, eh?

 

Gang members involved in a territorial dispute are not lawful firearm owners. They are nothing more than criminals.

Perhaps next time you can cite pedophiles as a reason for why religion is bad.

 

But you are totally unable to defend these people with guns, so you attempt to deflect.
Please explain why these bikers having guns is a good thing - if you can.

 

Can you prove they didn't own these weapons legally - they may have used them for illegal acts in this case, but there's nothing to say these guns weren't legally owned.
As for kiddie fiddlers, another attempt to deflect. Pity you don't realise a nation of kiddie fiddlers of just over 100 years ago is also a nation with a constitution allowing fools to own guns.
What, didn't you know it was legal to have sex with an 11 year old girl in America of not that long ago?
Still, why would you - facts are anti American.

In this thread, the fact is the mass ownership of firearms, not America's recent history of child abuse, so please stick to topic.

- - - Updated - - -

More deflection because the poster is unable to defend mass gun ownership.
Defend these bikers' right to own guns - if you can.

 

I don't have defend the right to own or not own a gun at all, for law abiding citizens, that has already been established by the FFs and courts. Those with emotional baggage always seem to think the guns can shoot someone all by themselves and refuse to address criminal behavior. Then instead of attempting to apply a fix to the real issues they come in and try to provoke emotional responses by poking the bear about big scary black guns.

 

<Rule 2>, please list where you got those statistics from and please be a reputable source like the CDC...Last time I looked, in 2013 there were roughly 36000 firearm related deaths in the US, 21000 of those were suicides...So please enlighten us where this fictional number came from...By the way, most hunters don't upset the ecosystem, we help keep it stable because people don't want wolves reintroduced in the lower 48 states. By keeping the number of deer, hogs, etc. down...it helps prevent overpopulation, disease and those animals from encroaching into rural areas <Rule 2>. By the way, the number of licenses to hunt are regulated by the Department of Fish and Game...<Rule 2>

 

In the case of the biker shoot-out- I listen pretty closely to NPR when the subject interests me. I heard the very short mention when it was revealed that ALL of the deaths were attributed to police. Got that? ALL of the murders were committed by law enforcement.
Since then, something like 174 of the bikers were detained on a $1M bail. No questions. No charges. Law suits are pending now by "club" members who were not involved in the scuffle, but are jailed anyway, even though they were legal CCW holders.
I won't defend the bikers. IMO, ownership of a Harley is a symptom of deeper dysfunction.

 

What proof do you have that the threats weren't planted or supporting liberals attempting to frame gun owners? Who was shot? Do you really believe it was right iou's for the paper to post gun owners personal addresses?

<Mod Edit>

 

<Mod Edit>

It's amazing that we had 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds last year, yet 575,000 hunters killed their wives? Interesting idea.

 

The politicians that are for gun control should not be allowed to own guns or have security that has guns.

 

Not only that...What about celebrities that don't want guns in the public yet hire armed bodyguards for themselves and their children. Remember when Rosie O'donnel threatened to stop being a spokesperson for Kmart if they kept selling firearms...They caved in and look where they are now...No where near Walmart that still sells guns. Then it came to light that her adopted son's bodyguard was armed. Hypocrite. And what about the likes of Liam Neeson and his Taken movies...It's all right for him to make a living portraying someone who uses guns to defend their family...But it is not alright for the American public...Another hypocrite...I don't mind someone who stands by their convictions...If you don't like guns no one is forcing you to own one...But it is not your right to take mine away when I have never committed a crime...

 

Have you ever thought that they might not NEED body guards if there were fewer crazies with guns?

 

no one has ever established or even come close to providing sufficient proof that gun bans prevent crazies from getting guns. Its a pipe dream <Mod Edit> use to justify their desire to disarm the citizenry. The theory is-if you ban guns, that means the criminals, the sociopaths and the homicidal maniacs are less likely to get guns. That theory may have some appeal to the weak minded and those who don't think things through, but the fact remains, those least respectful of laws against murder or armed robbery are also the least likely to be deterred by gun laws

so the schemes of the gun banners will disarm millions of good people and perhaps a few of the less intellectually nimble or motivated whack jobs. But that is not worth disarming millions of good people which, of course, is the real goal <Mod Edit>

 

Until this crazy breaks the law, he has all the rights afforded to al citizens. Unless he has been adjudicated as a "crazy" of course.
These people that are anti gun and call for and end to legal gun possession, should lead by example. Quite hypocritical.

 

I love this underpinning this is man with gun = good guy. I think that might be reinforced by your legislation, what there is of it surrounding gun ownership

 

It is indeed reinforced by our legislation.... It's called the 2nd amendment.

 

Is that a reflex action? I was thinking more along the lines of background checks giving a false sense of security

 

It's not a reflex action.... it's the truth. There is no other way to put it.
You are right about background checks, they are not keeping guns out of the hands of the demographic of the people responsible for the bulk of our gun violence stats.

 

THANK YOU.

 

You are correct. Background checks are of no viability, because they can be easily subverted with so little effort. Even if they were mandated nationwide, they could still be easily subverted.

 

Meanwhile in Chicago, the honor students have scored their 22nd confirmed kill for the month with another probable. It seems the CPD found a body burning in a trash can and the death is "under investigation." Money says it's not an NRA or Tea Party member.