42 people in Chicago shot over the weekend - Impact on US elections

Why would you want to lower gun violence? Why not violence? The means does not matter

 

Seriously? That's what you reply with?

 

If you guys want a safer nation, you can do it. The slow extraction of guns from people should be coupled with demilitarization and disarming of domestic authorities. That gives both sides something, and both sides sacrifice something. I can't say that people should have guns, because I know it causes more murder. I can't say people shouldn't have guns, because the police have tanks and total invasion of privacy in your country. It has to be done hand in hand. Disarm people and the local authorities.

But we all know you guys are instead going to make enemies of each other and divide yourselves, playing directly into the hands of the right wing and left wing billionaires.

It's getting tiresome. This thread is a carbon copy of every gun discussion ever. Do you know how long it's been, how much the rest of the world has moved on from this? You look like idiots to the rest of the world watching you have this stupid argument forever. No one believes anymore that most average citizens have an interest in maximizing safety and freedom because there are solutions out there. There are templates. There's been enough time. There's enough money. You don't live in a central african country. Grow up.

Stop expecting people to just give up their guns. Stop expecting people to just accept the consequences of freely selling guns. It's easier to get a gun than a car, and anyone who doesn't see that as a problem should be given psychological care. We all know that anyone can fly into America and buy a gun at a shop or on the street. Is that really what you want with your billionaires waging mass murder and war and stealing people's rights with the threat of nuclear violence and engaging in class warfare against poor people and expanding itself to the brink of tyranny?

What's the likely outcome of this group of strategies?

 

How do you propose to lower violence? This should be good.

 

We already have this for starters. What makes you think the statistics aren't accurate? And why would you water down a statistic to a national level in the first place? What are you even talking about?

There is no gun show loop hole. This is yet another idiotic liberal strawman argument. If you're a dealer, you're required to run back ground checks...even at a gun show. If you're selling as a private individual, you are not. Gun shows have little to do with this. You do not need a gun show to buy a gun w/out a background check ... once simply has to check various classifieds like backpage.

Another gem. There is a reason why only the ignorant want to renew the assault weapons ban. They have no idea what they are talking about. It accomplishes absolutely nothing all the while antagonizing the gun enthusiast to resist meaningful legislation.

Flying is not a constitutional right. Gun ownership is. Regardless of what I or anyone else believe, this is just a fact. One does not need a concrete reason for being put on a no-fly list. Restricting ones right to guns requires a reason.

Finally one point that would actually make a (small) difference. However there has not been a mass shooting that would have been prevented if this was enacted.

Another ignorant liberal idea. You're basically taking guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals can sell the guns for substantially much more than any buy back program can offer. It still doesn't stop gun manufactures from producing hundreds of guns a day.

One would hope.

I dont agree with banning muslims or arming every citizen, however both in itself would be 10x more effective than any other those previous idiotic ideas.

Mass shootings and terrorism will not be solved with more gun control unless one terminates the 2nd amendment. Until liberals can figure out how to end the 2nd amendment, find more practical ways of dealing with mass shootings and terrorism.

If one wants to deal with the real gun issue, which is the dozens of people killed everyday by guns, there are more practical ways.

The single biggest impact is to put gun responsibility on owners. If your son takes your gun and shoots up a school, you are responsible also. If someone breaks into your house and steals your gun sitting on the counter, you are responsible. Americans have a lackadaisical approach to gun ownership. Yes, law abiding Americans have a right to own a gun per the constitution. They do not have a right to carelessly leaving them around for others to cause harm. I know a lot of gun owners and very very few them secure them in a proper manner.

 

Innocent people and bystanders routinely get gunned down in Chicago.

 

We clearly need more prohibition, it's made things better every time it's been tried in America.

 

I think sensible gun control makes sense.

1. Assault weapon ban - there's simply no justification for a citizen to own a weapon designed to kill many targets at range.
2. Mandatory self-reported gun registry that is accessible by law enforcement with a mandatory penalty of 15 years in federal prison for possessing an unregistered gun.
3. Mandatory gun license with background check, psych evaluation, and referrences of at least 3 U.S. citizens, to be done at least once every 5 years. Possession of a gun without a license should be a 15 year mandatory prison term
4. Mandatory 15 years prison term for anyone selling an unregistered gun or a gun to an unlicensed person
5. 3 week waiting period on the purchase of any semi-automatic weapon.
6. For anyone who wants to carry a firearm (open or concealed) mandatory training on defensive gun use.
7. An individual has shown irresponsible gun use or made threats against others that can be corroborated with sufficient evidence, feds should have ability to suspend or revoke their license and forfeit their firearms.

 

anti-gun law advocates often give 2 reasons why (among others):

1) criminals would just use something else.
2) you would just be taking guns out of the hands of honest folk using guns for the right reason

In both the above scenarios gun violence would go down. That's what makes your demand for the reduction in gun violence dumb. Technically what a pro gun-law person should hope for is a reduction in homicide rates and suicides.

The reason people like you use 'gun violence' is cause it has 'gun' in the name making it easy to sell.

To make it simple for you, the purpose of a gun law is to reduce homicides and suicides not gun violence.

 

You do realize point 1 contradicts point 5. You obviously have no clue what an assault weapon is, but you want to mandatory 15 year sentence for a non-violent crime? Sounds familiar ... war on drugs? How is that working out for you. I can murder someone, get 10 years ... but you want to mandate a 15 year prison sentence for selling a gun? Ignorant.

 

Another fun fact:

Only 3 out of 200 constitutions in the world still have a right to bear arms in them. Other than the USA, only Guatemala and Mexico still have this right in their constitution (and both were modeled after the US constitution).

Over the years, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Liberia were the company you were in with that right to bear arms.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-03-07/u-s-gun-rights-truly-are-american-exceptionalism

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05...-gun-rights-enshrined-in-their-constitutions/

The rest of the world is shaking its head, looking at how this "right to bear arms" from 1776 (yeah, surprisingly they didn't consider flying a constitutional right back then) is still touted as a fundamental right in ONE country in the world, coincidentally also the country with the highest count of gun-related deaths in the world.

 

maybe you missed the part where he is for 'sensible' gun control. He's firmly against non-sensible stuff.

Arguing we should do something because others do is not nearly as compelling as you think it is.

 

Military grade weapons need to be banned. Period.

 

Should be interesting to see what you think is sensible.

1. Assault weapon ban - there's simply no justification for a citizen to own a weapon designed to kill many targets at range.[/QUOTE]

It's been done before fairly recently and it did nothing. People shouldn't have to justify why they should be allowed to do things, the government should have to justify why they think the people shouldn't be allowed to do things. Given that a ban on those weapons accomplishes nothing, I don't think they have a very good justification for banning them again.

You aren't starting out very well.

Ah mandatory minimum sentences and criminalizing citizens unjustly....you're really doing well now. Two really stupid ideas when bundled together apparently is your definition of sensible.

Even more mandatory minimum sentences for not really doing anything, feed that prison industrial complex!

Also I'd like to point out that it's hilarious that you are the same person that thought it was wrong to require ID to vote because you thought that was too much to ask for and yet you want to imprison people for not jumping through all sorts of hoops to do something that is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

And yet more mandatory minimum sentences, seriously, you have to work for a prison. It seems like you want anyone that has anything to do with guns to end up in prison without them actually doing anything wrong. Brilliant.

5. 3 week waiting period on the purchase of any semi-automatic weapon.[/QUOTE]

I think anyone that wants to carry a firearm ought to be trained to use it, but I don't think a federal mandate is the right thing to do. If states want to have those restrictions, then that's on them....still funny though that you are the one freaking out about an ID to vote and yet you REALLY want to prevent people from something that is a guaranteed right.

Also I imagine you want people to be thrown in prison for 15 years if they didn't get the training, right?

I'd probably support this but it really depends on what you are defining as "irresponsible gun use" and what exactly qualifies as "threats against others". It would also have to be something that was taken to court.

 

LOL this is always my favorite, "Military grade weapons".

Just what do you even mean by that? The military uses 12 gauge shotguns, does that make them "military grade weapons"? The military uses 9mm handguns are those now "military grade weapons"?

You can always tell when someone doesn't know much about firearms by the buzz phrases they use and "military grade weapons" is right up there at the top.

 

When you put it in that perspective, it really does seem ridiculous how this is still such a contentious issue here.

What do gun rights advocates blame our off the charts gun crime rates on, if not high accessibility and availability of guns?

 

The military also uses tomahawks and knives, are those now "military grade weapons"? What about swords?

 

Not in itself.

But when you realize that you have by far the highest gun ownership and by far the most gun-related deaths, and keep going back to the constitution to defend your right to bear arms, comparing yourself with other countries and - yes - learning from them suddenly might not be such a terrible idea. I have no vote there, of course, but I can bring a little bit of international perspective.

Whether you want to take it into consideration at all is your decision.

 

Now that I think about it, should we ban this truck?



The commercial says it's "military grade"

 

The data doesn't not back up claim 1), in fact it contradicts it.

I would not be taking guns out of honest folks. If they abide by the rules they would have every gun but assault rifles - why would a law abiding, honest person need an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?

Reduction of availability of guns to criminals will result in lower gun violence which nets lower overall deaths. I am not sure how more simple it can be.

Well before you attack me, I did look up the definition of an assault weapon and by the definition (which is admittingly not standard) - it is not synonymous with semi-automatic. So no, it does not contradict.

Also, drug laws are a terrible comparison. The purpose of drugs or having them is not to kill someone. In fact the laws were passed mainly to target minorities by Nixon's own admission. The purpose of guns is to kill, and having one illegally would only be done if there was intention to use it illegally - that is to kill.

So I think a 15 years mandatory punishment is actually quite light for doing something with the intention of killing.