Ahhhh. I see your misunderstanding. I was using things called “facts” and “logic.” I can see how that would sound like gibberish to you.
I’m sorry. I had rather thought that they would feel free to chime in if they had an opinion. I was not aware that I had to invite them. I had assumed that they were, in general, smart enough to realize that they were welcome to chime in on a public forum.
Also, while I am happy to hear from them, their subjective opinions do not automatically override the objective numbers posted by their own government.
Sorry, but I am pretty sure that the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT did not retrieve statistics from my rectum before posting it on their own web site. I think that I would have felt it.
You seem to be implying that I am trying to deceive people. Tell you what… put up or shut up. I have provided sources for all of the data that I used. If I am trying to deceive, PROVE IT. Show the entire world where I have lied or misrepresented the truth. Either expose me as a liar for all the world to see, or be shown to be one yourself. I have used the facts as I have found them, and presented them the best that I know how.
From your response, I can tell three things about you:
You oppose my opinion.
Yet, you cannot preset any facts to contradict anything that I have presented
Lacking any other course of action, you resort to infantile insults and slander, rather than be silent or man up and admit that you have to counter arguments.
Sorry, but we already have laws that have gone through “sane” and passed through to the level of “unreasonable.” Yes, guns in the hands of criminals is a very bad idea. So, which laws do you suppose that criminals will suddenly start to obey? Guess what? Laws will have an impact on the 99.9% of honest citizens without having much of an impediment to the 0.1% who intend to do harm. Wait, are gun-control laws the ones that criminals will suddenly decide to start obeying?
The laws that I am referring to are the ones seeking to ban certain types of firearms or certain magazine sized. I must be missing something. Please explain to me how telling a farmer in Georgia that he cannot own an AR-15 with a 20-round magazine to kill feral hogs destroying his crops will make people in Chicago or Washington DC any safer.
I live in Colorado where they passed “universal” background checks a year ago. Criminals stopped? Approximately zero. I did turn some honest citizens into criminals, however. Real situations: soldier lives with his fiance. He gets deployed. Unless he gets a background check on his fiance EVERY MONTH, he is a criminal. We also had fires destroy hundreds of homes. If a family evacuates their house, they are likely to take their guns with them since they are expensive. So, they have two choices. They can leave their guns with friends, thereby breaking the law. Or, they can take the guns to the hotel, where they will not likely be able to secure them well against their children. Due to the way that the BATF takes away licenses for silly paperwork mistakes, dealers are simply not willing to do background checks unless there is a sale involved. I know that turning innocent gun owners into criminals due to a badly-written law is not a big deal to you, but some of us take is seriously.
Do you have to go through a criminal background check to buy a car? Seriously, driving a car was not mentioned in the “Bill of Rights” the last time that I checked. There are far LESS regulations on free speech and being free from unwarranted searched. Sorry, but rights are rights.
By the way, there are plenty of politicians out there who actually DO want to take away all guns. The very same politicians who swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet try to undermine it.
Well, perhaps we just have different definitions of sane level of regulations. The hoops some people have to jump through to be able to purchase a handgun are pretty odious in some parts of the country.
Actually, that’s not true and many more that won’t admit to wanting to ban them all want to ban big groups of them. Like handguns and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. Sorry, I’m not buying it.
I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, I just don’t think it’s possible. Consider the “success” of our War on Drugs. Drugs are essentially a consumable good that must be purchased regularly. Stopping the flow of drugs has been a major failure. Guns, on the other hand, are durable goods with a useful lifetime measured in decades. They don’t need to be replaced very often. The flow of guns will be much smaller and harder to detect. Good luck getting them out of the hands of criminals.
That is one seriously stupid argument and one that has been disproven in country after country. When there is a national gun registry, guns are indeed much less likely to find their ways into the hands of criminals. When there are background checks guns are indeed much less likely to find their way into the hands of those who are unstable or have a history of malicious intent. Neither of these things have anything to do with criminals deciding to follow laws. Both of those things have been proven to work time and time again in country after country.
citation?
She is buying a new gun every month he is gone, yikes! Background checks in Colorado are only required prior to purchase. He can legally keep his gun in his residence even if he is serving overseas without transferring ownership to her, a single background check of her would only be required if he transferred ownership to her. If he is worried there are many gun clubs that offer secured storage of firearms.
Not their only two choices, they can store their guns at a secure facility until they have a place of residence, which is a much better choice then carting them all to a hotel. My god these peopel aren’t morons.
Yes, the sane federal regulations are much less then those requirements, not more. They are background checks prior to purchase, and a national registry, full stop.
Except that every country that has tried it has seen huge success, not a single country didn’t have it work. There are a lot of precedents that can be studied if you want to move from conjecture to facts.
Nor was NOT having background checks prior to purchase, or a national gun ownership registry. The right to own, does not equal the right to own completely unregulated. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about sane gun regulations. Also the whole reason this was AMENDED onto the constitution is no longer valid. whether or not you are for or against gun regulations that is a fact.
who? the gun lobby is so insane that the majority of both D and R candidates have not even dared having a remotely sane regulation stance, that is one of the points of the original story.
National registry? No, and Hell No. Registration has already led to confiscation in this country and others.
Yeah, Mexico has extremely strict gun laws and they have no problem with guns, right? And considering that our government came up with a plan to feed thousands of guns directly to the drug cartels, I don’t have too much faith in that government to not screw me over.
Yes, I would love a citation proving that registration works, thank you. Registration would actually make confiscation much easier later on, that much is certain.
Since the solder is living with the fiance, they are in the same house. And, as I mentioned, almost all dealers will not do a background check without a purchase.
And, unless the gun club is a licensed dealer, that is also illegal.
Sure, You get notice that you have to evacuate. You have a LOT of time to go rent a storage unit. Of course, leaving them with your brother-in-law that you have known for 20 years is illegal, even though he has guns of his own. Wow, that law makes me feel safer already! Doesn’t bother the criminals, though.
If you are going through a dealer, we ALREADY have background checks. Tell me again how registration is supposed to magically stop stolen or illegal guns? Is this the law that criminals would suddenly decide to start obeying?
[quote=“redesigned, post:204, topic:31452”]
Except that every country that has tried it has seen huge success, not a single country didn’t have it work. There are a lot of precedents that can be studied if you want to move from conjecture to facts.
[quote=“redesigned, post:204, topic:31452”]
Umm, I have provided a ton of statistics with links to the sources. I have been dealing with facts. You are making claims, but without a single link to any statistics. It looks like you are still in the world of conjecture.
Do you need a background check before publishing a book? There is nothing that says that you CAN’T require a background check first. Same logic.
Guns already ARE regulated. And, once again, who gets to define “sane?” You?
Sorry, but you do not know much about the history of this country. The founding fathers expected that revolution would be necessary when the government became too oppressive. I am sorry, but when faced with your opinion, and the opinion of James Madison, I trust the wisdom of Madison much more.
So, free speech, protection from self-incrimination, and protection from searches without warrants were also AMENDMENTS. Are those reasons no longer valid? (well, the only Amendment that the Obama administration actually likes is the 5th, but that is another story).
My opinions are not entirely my own, but were heavily influenced by the founders of this great country. They fought a bloody revolution, and crafted the laws of this country to try to keep it a free nation. What are your qualifications? Did you found a nation?
SENATOR Fenstein: “If I could have banned them all - ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ - I would have!” and “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Yes, a sitting US senator with a complete disregard of the Constitution.
The Senate also almost succeeded in voting to ban all standard-sized magazines, which would have almost no effect on crime at all.
Here is another quote:
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.” - Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
Obama would not admit to this opinion now. So was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Now. you are right that being rabidly anti-gun is not wise come election time. However, you do NOT ban them. You add a little reasonable regulation. Then, another shooting, so you add another little regulation. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you restrict gun ownership? One little regulation at a time.
Generally, isn’t that the case for anyone who wants to table an amendment? Do you take the position that any attempt to amend the constitution is undermining it?
Were the people who wrote the 18th amendment undermining it? How about the 21st? How about the people who wrote the 2nd amendment? What if someone proposed a 28th amendment with this text?
The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
I guess he might have changed his position in the meantimes but I’d suspect he’s lying now (lying by omission, perhaps). Basically because it’s political suicide to openly go against the NRA and the gun lobby in most areas of the US. That said, I think it’s reasonable to hold the opinion that people shouldn’t have gun, yet recognize that they have the right to and you aren’t going to do anything about it.
It is one thing to try to repeal the 2nd amendment – at least that is honest. However, nobody that I know of is seriously trying to repeal the amendment. They are trying to go around the Constitution and ban guns any way you can despite what the Constitution says.
Canada, Japan, Australia, UK, and about half the EU. Any quick google can turn up the list of countries where it has worked. Here is a Business Insider article discussing this fact: These Laws Are the Reason Canada, Australia, Japan and the UK Have Such Low Gun Homicide Rates
There are hundreds of other possible citations as far as studies and articles go. Every country that has tried it has had it work. But why am I replying with a citation when you ignored my request because you had nothing but FUD.
The ones that offer secured storage all do so legally, at least all the ones I’ve ever heard of.
Most places will rent the same day, especially in emergency circumstances. Most law enforcement agencies offer the same service. Can you cite a single instance of this happening where it was an issue?
Why repeat the clear explanation, like you mention it would be telling you how AGAIN.
OMG. Yeah because books are lethal weapons or pose public danger? WTF. I’m suddenly aware that you can’t rationally discuss things like this with someone like you who thinks that is in any way a sane comparison, so this is where I stop…you win all the crazys. good day sir.
While it did drop significantly, mexico has the problem of a lot of illegal weapons leaking across their northern border INTO mexico. The several large cartel seizures were all weapons from the USA. Hurray. So yes they still have a problem, a problem that is largely fueled by the USA. Most criminal gun confiscations in Canada similarly are from the USA.
Fair enough, you are against it, there are many people who think this is sane. I find it reasonable, similar to how you have to have to register and license a car. I can respect you being against it. It seems like you at least understand the counter perspective and have your personal reasons.
That was in reply to Kevin H. Apologies for any confusion. I replied to both of you in the same message.
Not this again. Sorry, but any study that focuses strictly on gun deaths is implying that murders committed with knives and baseball bats are completely acceptable. When have you ever been to a funer and heard “Our beloved sister was brutally stabbed, but I am just glad that she was not shot.” Of course, if there are no guns, then gun murders will be non-existent. That does NOT mean that there will be no murder. As I have already pointed out, murder in the USA has dropped more than in Australia. It is just that in Australia, stabbings went up while shootings went way down.
So, you have presented NO proof that new laws would stop murders, just murders with one specific weapon. Good job.
Now, for the REAL facts, Between 1995 and 2007, homicides went down in Australia by 25%, but they went down in the USA by about 32%. Violent crime went UP in Australia during the same time period by about 40%, but went DOWN in the USA by around 30% (don’t remember the exact figures, but it is in the FBI web site). So, who do you think is doing better? Are you a fan of murders decreasing by less, and increasing violent crime? Those are the facts. Look here:
Crunch the numbers yourself. Don’t forget to adjust for population. Double-check what I am telling you. Verify that I am telling you the truth. Then, draw your own conclusion.
I am just saying that jumping through hoops to comply with a stupid law is unnecessary when your house had just burned down. Didn’t those people go through enough without having to worry about complying with a law that makes nobody safer? Yes, a self-storage site would likely be legal. However, storing stuff at a “gun club” as you mentioned would NOT be legal unless it was a licensed dealer. Do you live in Colorado? Do you have to live with these stupid laws? If I take my kids shooting, I am technically a criminal if I hand my AR-15 with 20-round magazine to my son to shoot. When he hands it back to me, my son is a criminal. If my gun jams and the range officer helps me clear the jam, he is a criminal. Great law there! Once again, this law will not stop the criminals, just turn honest citizens into criminals.
You still have yet to explain how criminals would suddenly choose to obey new gun laws. Wishful thinking? Magic? They suddenly turn good and repent of their evil ways? Oh, yes. That is right. Denied access to a legal gun, criminals will not think to use a kinife. They will not think to buy a stolen gun. They will go to a movie instead.
Hmmmm. How many people were killed as a result of “The Communist Manifesto?” Ten million? Twenty million? An idea can be far more dangerous than any single weapon. Plus, speech is a RIGHT, just like gun ownership. Look up the word “right.” It is in the bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of “suggestions” or bill of “reasonably good ideas”
Since gun ownership is a right, the burden of proof is on you to give reasons to restrict the right. So far, you have not.
No, that is absolutely ridiculous. AND, if you bother to do any research, murder rates dropped significantly in every single one of those countries, not just murder by gun. (side note: When you are talking percentages you have to understand math. if something is reduced by 50% and increased by 50% is is only 75% of the original value. hint: look at the straight per capita numbers instead so you don’t get confused.)
I lived in Colorado for 22yrs.
Completely untrue. You are legally allowed to fire other peoples guns. You are allowed to let your son fire your guns. Assuming that those guns are legal.
You are right, I explained that they DON’T HAVE TO, THAT ISN’T HOW IT WORKS! Maybe read the explanation that I gave.
Gosh darnnit you tricked me into replying to your nonsense, my bad… If anyone is hurting gun rights it is crazy people making crazy arguments. It scares the hell out of us sane folks.
I hunt, I’m just not a nutbag with a personal arsenal who thinks the government is coming for all guns.
This site claims the report is a hoax. I cannot confirm or deny that this is the case. Just passing on a link. Given the way that Mother Jones plays fast and loose with the truth, I would not be terribly surprised.
Ummm. With a Master’s degree in engineering, I think that I know how to handle simple percentages.
Still, feel free to post more accurate numbers if you want.
I do admit that the murder rate in Australia dropped, however it dropped MORE in America during exactly the same time period. Plus, reported violent crime went UP in Australia – fact. Reported violent crime in the USA went DOWN – another fact. If you dispute these facts, post links to government statistics proving otherwise.
So you know about the law concerning transferring a magazine holding more than 15 rounds, right? My story involved a 20-round magazine, and what I said was absolutely true. If I hand my son a 20-round magazine, I am a criminal. The general guideline is that you are not supposed to be prosecuted for simple things like this, but that is still the letter of the law. Please read this: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?open&file=1224_enr.pdf Now, the big questions is the actual definition of “continuous possession.” I really do not think that you are in a position to lecture me on what is legal in Colorado since, apparently, you did not even know about this part of the law.
Please take it from somebody who has to live with these laws. If you still live in Colorado, you need to know this stuff, since the law affects you.
Nutbag? I back up everything that I say with statistics and logic. I am sorry that you think that links to crime statistics are “nonsense.” Nothing I can do to change your mind on that.
So far, the only link that you have provided is that less guns == less gun crime, but completely ignores crime in general. I do not cherry pick my data. I give the good and the bag. Looks like I am more in touch with reality than you are.
I do not have an arsenal. I keep my guns locked up, and take them out maybe twice a year. However, I have children, and I want them to grow up to have the same freedom that I have. I hope to have grandchildren one day, and wish the same thing for them too.
Small bands have been effective to varying degrees against foreign armies in Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan (twice), and Iraq, at least in recent memory.
But we’re not talking about small bands. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in this country. In the event of some kind of ridiculous Red Dawn scenario, we could theoretically muster a little less than 100 million armed civilians with a home court advantage- Enough to make anything short of nukes or bioweapons far to costly to even consider. Likewise in the event of a civil war- The losses would be to great to even risk. It’s mutual assured destruction, and even without our own military in the game, that alone reduces the chance of an invasion or serious insurrection to near zero.
And again, I’d like to reiterate my position in favor of dramatically reducing the military.
But here’s the real argument stopper for me: Consolidation of power always ends badly. The most effective guarantee of freedom is for power- regardless of whether that power is legal, economic, or physical- to be widely distributed among the populace, rather than wielded by a privileged elite.
While I might not agree on the effectiveness of firearms against modern military forces, the relevancy of the 2nd amendment’s justification in the modern world, or on the likelihood of any such doomsday scenarios, I understand your points.
I do agree with this. we really don’t need to spend so much more then every other country in the world combined on our military especially when we can’t really afford the bill. I think we can make smart reductions in cost and scope without compromising national security or our military might.
I agree with that general notion as well.
I just think that America has a bit of a gun problem, and perhaps we could do something responsible and reasonable to offset that. With great power comes great responsibility, or at least that should be the case.
That is exactly what you are doing. Instead of looking at the swath of countries and and that it worked for every single one of them you cherry pick a 3 year period in which other violent crime increased in Australia (without looking at why) and decreased in the USA (without looking at why). As someone with a Masters in Engineering, you might want to look at the whole data set and the influencing factors. Does gun regulations reduce murders, undeniably, that is a fact. Arguing if the tradeoff is worth it is a very different discussion and one that I could respectfully disagree with, denying reality is not.
Good. They aren’t trying to take away your freedom, they are just trying to make sure that your children get to grow up.
I know the proposed national laws have absolutely nothing to do with specific state regulations. Sure I agree that specific state law sounds off, but that isn’t what is being discussed here at all. You throw out some absurd highly specific scenario about a Colorado only law as argument against what is actually much more sane national regulations. It doesn’t follow. Setting a reasonable national standard that is less then the laws currently implemented in Colorado is a no brainier, for me at least.
(also i still wait on two citations, i provided the one you requested.)
