So, with this dustup at F$U and Bernie's ass gone

[EvilWayz]

There is an epidemic but I'm not sure there is much we can do about it at this point. I do know that the gun nut solution of we need MORE guns and assault style weapons seems counter intuitive.
NOTE: I would start by banning gun sales to anyone on the FBI terrorist watch list.

First, there is no epidemic. THere haven't been 355 mass shootings this year according to FBI data. There have been FOUR. That "355" data comes from a guy on reddit that thinks he knows better.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/485...s-in-2015-now-the-ny-times-reveals-the-truth/

It's not counter intuitive. Where do mass shooters go? Where there are no guns. I'm not saying everyone wander about with a .45 on their hip, I'm say at least put some armed security or hire off duty police officers if you aren't going to let people protect themselves.

"Assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of crimes. Further the terror watch list isn't constitutional by a long shot. It would be less so to deprive people of their second amendment rights without due process, or do you think the DOJ "thinking" you might be up to something should allow them to keep you from flying or buying?

Stupidist thing you've ever written. The CA terrorist was law abiding when he bought all of those weapons. People had every reason to be afraid of him. Everyone is law abiding until they aren't.

And that's the stupidest thing YOU've written. Let's take that analogy to its logical conclusion shall we?

"All men aren't rapists until they are."

You're basically saying that all gun owners are one wakeup from being mass shooters. So what shall we do then, lock up 81 million people because you're nervous?

And none of the weapons used in the incident are legal in California. Nor is the body armor they wore to protect themselves.

 

[djegators]

Less than 1% of firerarms will ever be used in crime
Most of gun shot victims are criminals, shot by other criminals
Violent crime overall has been in decline in for at least three decades.

 

[badselectioncommittee]

Less than 1% of firerarms will ever be used in crime
Most of gun shot victims are criminals, shot by other criminals
Violent crime overall has been in decline in for at least three decades.

1. Just proves there are way more guns than people need.
2. Good. That's of little consolation to the others though.
3. Thank you Roe v Wade. Correlation doesn't equal causation. BTW.

 

[badselectioncommittee]

First, there is no epidemic. THere haven't been 355 mass shootings this year according to FBI data. There have been FOUR. That "355" data comes from a guy on reddit that thinks he knows better.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/485...s-in-2015-now-the-ny-times-reveals-the-truth/

It's not counter intuitive. Where do mass shooters go? Where there are no guns. I'm not saying everyone wander about with a .45 on their hip, I'm say at least put some armed security or hire off duty police officers if you aren't going to let people protect themselves.

"Assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of crimes. Further the terror watch list isn't constitutional by a long shot. It would be less so to deprive people of their second amendment rights without due process, or do you think the DOJ "thinking" you might be up to something should allow them to keep you from flying or buying?



And that's the stupidest thing YOU've written. Let's take that analogy to its logical conclusion shall we?

"All men aren't rapists until they are."

You're basically saying that all gun owners are one wakeup from being mass shooters. So what shall we do then, lock up 81 million people because you're nervous?

And none of the weapons used in the incident are legal in California. Nor is the body armor they wore to protect themselves.

1. Prove that mass shooters target gun free zones. See Charlie H. In Paris and Planned Parenthood attacks. I agree with your point about hiring security guards.
2. I know it's not constitutional, but that will change when things get bad enough. If you are Muslim, I think you should have to prove you have no ties to terrorists before you can buy a gun.
3. You missed the point. It was a stupid statement. This Muslim terrorist bought his guns legally. People don't walk around with a "law abiding citizen" around his neck. If someone walks into one of my stores with an AK, I'm going to assume the worst.
4. Never said we should lock them up, or even ban gun purchases. I just think it should be more difficult to obtain the stuff this Muslim guy had though. Is that so unreasonable?

 

[EvilWayz]

Ok here goes. The Charlie Hedbo office was a de facto gun free zone, since gun laws in France are very strict. The policeman that responded didn't have a gun for Christ's sake. Planned Parenthood didn't have armed security either, they just had very good locks. And I'm betting like most hospitals and medical clinics, it had a big no weapons allowed sign. Using FBI data, not data from some asshole on Reddit, where a mass shooting is defined as one shooter and at least 4 victims, 2 mass shootings have occurred outside of gun free zones since 1950. http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-...otings-1950-took-place-where-guns-were-banned

I am not giving up constitutional rights for the illusion of safety. And neither should you.

If someone walked into my place of business with an AK, I would be on alert. There's no good reason to be carry long arms around unless you're planning to use them. But there's a difference between a guy with his rifle slung and a guy at low ready.

Bad, none of the weapons used in the shooting were legal in California. Ar-15's are as rare as hen's teeth in CA, and the ones that are still there are single shot, with a special magazine release that you have to have a tool to remove the magazine block, so no quick reloads. There are no hi cap mags for pistols or rifles in California, all are limited to ten rounds. There are universal background checks in California, every single weapon sold in California, regardless of who the seller is, has to have a background check conducted for the transaction to be completed. There are any number of pistols and shotguns that have been banned by the California DOJ for many stupid reasons, mostly because they demand models to be used for destructive tests. Hell, Gen 4 Glocks are illegal in CA. Body armor is illegal unless you have a department letterhead from law enforcement or are in the military.

The three shooters managed to get regular ARs with multiple high cap mags and pistols with multiple high cap mags and body armor. And the anti- gun crowds solution is to make the same gun control that didn't work in California for Elliot Rodgers or Farook to extend to the entire country.

I fail to see how limiting my right to firearms stops criminals from acquiring them.

Laws don't melt metal. And Criminals don't follow laws.

 

[djegators]

Less than 1% of all firearms are used in crimes.
Most murders are not committed with guns
A very small percentage of gun murders are committed with rifles, let alone so-called assault rifles
Most victims of gun murders are criminals
Most gun deaths are suicides
Mass shootings represent a tint percentage of murders
Millions of people protect themselves from violence every year using firearms
CCW holders are much more law-abiding than the general population. In FL about .3% of licenses have ever been revoked due to firearm related crime

But then again, facts mean nothing to leftists, truth is of no value.

 

[djegators]

Has the evidence of the dangers of campus carry been presented yet? Colorado has had campus carry for over a decade now, surely there is plenty of proof to back up those who oppose it.

 

[MJWilliamson]

It addresses a nonexistent problem. What happened to self determination.

If by the non existent problem, do you mean campus shootings are a non existent problem?

 

[badselectioncommittee]

If by the non existent problem, do you mean campus shootings are a non existent problem?

Yes. See DJE's post three above. How many gun deaths have their been on college campuses? If the students and professors don't think they need them, why should the paranoid gun nuts have their way.

 

[MJWilliamson]

Yes. See DJE's post three above. How many gun deaths have their been on college campuses? If the students and professors don't think they need them, why should the paranoid gun nuts have their way.

So then, with a non existent problem, no need for more gun control...right?

 

[badselectioncommittee]

So then, with a non existent problem, no need for more gun control...right?

Nor less.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

What would happen if we switched to a system that allowed citizens to own shotguns and hunting rifles, but not handguns, "assault rifles," etc.? Then, only allow manufacturers to sell handguns to the military or police.

You can defend your family pretty effectively with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. On the other hand, it's hard to sneak around in public places with a shot gun.

 

[GatorGray]

You can defend your family pretty effectively with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. On the other hand, it's hard to sneak around in public places with a shot gun.

You are falling right into the trap of assuming that criminals will obey the law.

 

[badselectioncommittee]

You are falling right into the trap of assuming that criminals will obey the law.

I hate this argument. It makes no sense. So we shouldn't have any laws because criminals don't follow the law? Is that your line of thinking?

 

[GatorGray]

I hate this argument. It makes no sense. So we shouldn't have any laws because criminals don't follow the law? Is that your line of thinking?

Your simple mindedness astounds. He was talking about outlawing hand guns so people couldn't go to a public place with one. If you think outlawing them will make you safer, by all means, write big check to the liberal politicians that support it.

 

[MJWilliamson]

What would happen if we switched to a system that allowed citizens to own shotguns and hunting rifles, but not handguns, "assault rifles," etc.? Then, only allow manufacturers to sell handguns to the military or police.

You can defend your family pretty effectively with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. On the other hand, it's hard to sneak around in public places with a shot gun.

Then only the bad guys will have the handguns

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

Yes. The bad guys will still have handguns because there are over 100 million of them in the US alone.

But let's assume that, going forward, all handguns being made are bought by the government, for military or policing. Aside from the occasional heist or bootleg, new handguns would be unavailable to the general public.

It obviously would take many years, but just like baseball cards, handguns would become increasingly scarce and expensive. Maybe the government could offer some kind of incentives program, like "cash for clunkers." Or offer a shotgun for handgun exchange.

 

[MJWilliamson]

Terrible idea.

Most hand gun deaths are suicides.

 

[MJWilliamson]

 

[djegators]

Yes. The bad guys will still have handguns because there are over 100 million of them in the US alone.

But let's assume that, going forward, all handguns being made are bought by the government, for military or policing. Aside from the occasional heist or bootleg, new handguns would be unavailable to the general public.

It obviously would take many years, but just like baseball cards, handguns would become increasingly scarce and expensive. Maybe the government could offer some kind of incentives program, like "cash for clunkers." Or offer a shotgun for handgun exchange.

But we already have a situation where a fairly large number of firearms are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained from military, LE sources, etc. There are even a large number of illegal weapons that cross the border, some of them are even from places where guys hand make guns out of scraps.

As for your assertion that long guns will suffice for self defense, you are completely ignoring the millions of folks that conceal carry.

So if we did your plan, the law-abiding citizens would be subjected to much higher violent crime rates and a lot less legal means to protect themselves, while simultaneously growing the black market for guns exponentially.

Your plan, not reasonable, not practical, not effective, very dangerous, and very infringing.

 

[GatorGray]

Yes. The bad guys will still have handguns because there are over 100 million of them in the US alone.

But let's assume that, going forward, all handguns being made are bought by the government, for military or policing. Aside from the occasional heist or bootleg, new handguns would be unavailable to the general public.

It obviously would take many years, but just like baseball cards, handguns would become increasingly scarce and expensive. Maybe the government could offer some kind of incentives program, like "cash for clunkers." Or offer a shotgun for handgun exchange.

What do you plan on doing about that (pesky) Second Amendment and the numerous SCOTUS rulings on same?

 

[NavigatorII]

What do you plan on doing about that (pesky) Second Amendment and the numerous SCOTUS rulings on same?

Libbies love to want to chit on the 2nd amendment............so how about we do the same with same regarding the 14th and also blocking any citizenship AND entry to this country from 3rd world POS's from Muslim countries? Personally I do not dislike nor like anyone. I don't have issues with Buddhists nor Hindus because to date they don't want to commit jihad on us. Live and let live, and let the carpet bombs fall where they may. I do think we should just remove our bases overseas and let the savages just fight and kill themselves. We only need to be energy independent and that is definitely within grasp these days. Let those savage MF'ers fight amongst themselves and God have mercy on Europe's souls. They reaped what they sowed........and deserve what they get.

 

[djegators]

What do you plan on doing about that (pesky) Second Amendment and the numerous SCOTUS rulings on same?

How many deaths would the leftists find acceptable if their war on guns was brought to action?

 

[Ghost of Spaceheater]

How many deaths would the leftists find acceptable if their war on guns was brought to action?

World's overpopulated. The liberal elitists actually want the lower classes to thin out. You should read the demented ideas of many of the tree huggers out there.

Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" is about the environmental whackos (think about those idiots who drive nails into trees so that when a lumberjack's chain saw hits it the chain breaks maiming the lumberjack) going whole hog.

 

[djegators]

World's overpopulated. The liberal elitists actually want the lower classes to thin out. You should read the demented ideas of many of the tree huggers out there.

Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" is about the environmental whackos (think about those idiots who drive nails into trees so that when a lumberjack's chain saw hits it the chain breaks maiming the lumberjack) going whole hog.

Oh of course, that is what planned parenthood and the abortion movement was founded on. My question is, in the name of ending gun violence, how many people do they want killed by guns?

 

[EvilWayz]

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.