Gun laws are victimless crime laws.

115 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote ah2:

The columbine shooters did not use any assault weapons covered under the ban.

Exactly the used explosives instead showing that the ban did not limit casualties it just forced the choice of another weapon.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote ah2:

The columbine shooters did not use any assault weapons covered under the ban.

Exactly the used explosives instead showing that the ban did not limit casualties it just forced the choice of another weapon.

So you are saying that regulating gun sales is useless and therefore should not be done. Based on that logic there should be no laws because the law breakers will break the law anyway so what's the point. Banning the use of heroin only forces the choice of another drug. You can't pick and choose what should be regulated based on your personal feelings. That is nothing but organized chaos. You must be pro abortion because banning it's implementation by professionals will only force those wanting an abortion to get it done in an alley. What's the point?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote ah2:

The columbine shooters did not use any assault weapons covered under the ban.

Exactly the used explosives instead showing that the ban did not limit casualties it just forced the choice of another weapon.

So you are saying that regulating gun sales is useless and therefore should not be done. Based on that logic there should be no laws because the law breakers will break the law anyway so what's the point. Banning the use of heroin only forces the choice of another drug. You can't pick and choose what should be regulated based on your personal feelings. That is nothing but organized chaos. You must be pro abortion because banning it's implementation by professionals will only force those wanting an abortion to get it done in an alley. What's the point?

Thats just the thing I'm for minimal regulation. I don't think any drug should be illegal. And your logic is flawd because both drugs are illegal. You can'tstop pyshcos all banning guns does is make us easier targets. If guns were the problem why didn't we see these shooting in the days you could mail order a tommy gun? I just want to know that this will even help before we blindly take away rights.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote DynoDon:

What a pity! People are getting killed and people are arguing about definitions.

The real pity comes in when you have people that believe laws will stop crime.

NO ONE believes laws will "stop" crime.

Sure you do that is why you are calling for a weapons ban.

Don't fucking tell me what I believe. If you want to know my opinion, ask it. You have no right to misrepresent my views asshole.

I did you refused to answer questions.

I have already told you SEVERAL times the reational for the gun laws. I have answered ALL your LEGITIMATE questions. You are a dishonest asshole. You do that again, I will send in a ban request. Good day.

no you did not I asked you specific questions about how many criminals buy their guns legaly and use them in a legal fashion. you said i should do my own research. I also asked you how a law banning semi auto matic rifles will stop criminals from using them to comit a crime again you said I should do my own research.

I also asked you who was going to pay me back for the banned weapons I am not longer allowed to have. you said the government will not come and take them but me just having one in my safe is against the law. under the last bann possesion of an assualt weapon was also against the law. so if i bought it legally, used it legally, store it properly under the ban I am still a criminal for not turning it in.

banning things does not stop it from happening, their will still be mass murders and mass shootings. congressman giffards was shot with a 9MM pistol not an assualt weapon, columbine was complished without assualt rifles.

the d.o.j. said assualt weapons amount to less than 2 percent of all gun violence between 1997 and 2003. sounds like we have an epidemic on are hands.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

More people were beat to death last year than killed with rifles, so do we ban fists?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote DynoDon:

What a pity! People are getting killed and people are arguing about definitions.

The real pity comes in when you have people that believe laws will stop crime.

NO ONE believes laws will "stop" crime.

Sure you do that is why you are calling for a weapons ban.

Don't fucking tell me what I believe. If you want to know my opinion, ask it. You have no right to misrepresent my views asshole.

I did you refused to answer questions.

I have already told you SEVERAL times the reational for the gun laws. I have answered ALL your LEGITIMATE questions. You are a dishonest asshole. You do that again, I will send in a ban request. Good day.

no you did not I asked you specific questions about how many criminals buy their guns legaly and use them in a legal fashion. you said i should do my own research. I also asked you how a law banning semi auto matic rifles will stop criminals from using them to comit a crime again you said I should do my own research.

As I said, I answered your LEGITIMATE questions.

I also asked you who was going to pay me back for the banned weapons I am not longer allowed to have. you said the government will not come and take them but me just having one in my safe is against the law. under the last bann possesion of an assualt weapon was also against the law. so if i bought it legally, used it legally, store it properly under the ban I am still a criminal for not turning it in.

Bans are prohibitions on sales. Guns purchased before the ban will not be reclaimed. From the wiki post that you STILL have not read: "The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment."

banning things does not stop it from happening,
still have never claimed this. You are engaging in a strawman logical fallacy which means your argument can't stand when actually dealing with my claims.

their will still be mass murders and mass shootings.
You are correct.

congressman giffards was shot with a 9MM pistol not an assualt weapon, columbine was complished without assualt rifles.

Laughner used a 9mm with a high capacity clip he would have not been able to obtain under the weapons ban. It was a 33 round clip. Even with this weapon, he only injured 20 people as opposed to the 63 (?) that were killed/injured in the Colorado shooing. At Columbine, only 31 people were killed or injured. Their weapons were bought by a friend at a gun show - although there was a assault weapons ban, there was not a requirement to register sales, nor was there a permit requirement in place. Their friends was also not required to register the sale of the weapons to them. Had this law been in place with a heavy fine and also a stipulation that the seller would be complicit in any criminal activity the buyer in the unregistered sale engages in, the sale probably would have never happened. Both Comlumbine shooters were underage and one was seeing a pychiatrist. With the mental health guidelines Dems often ask for had been in place, these kids would never have been eligible for the purchase in this case.

They had bombs but none of them injured anyone. Virtually all of them failed to go off. The one in their car went off 12 hours after it was supposed to after the school area had been cleared by police. Only a few of the pipe bombs went off and they don't seem to have injured anyone by existing accounts.

the d.o.j. said assualt weapons amount to less than 2 percent of all gun violence between 1997 and 2003. sounds like we have an epidemic on are hands.

It's about severity not frequency. You must be one of the dumbest people I have ever met.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote Commonsense461:

More people were beat to death last year than killed with rifles, so do we ban fists?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...

It's about severity not frequency. You too go on the idiot list.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote Commonsense461:

More people were beat to death last year than killed with rifles, so do we ban fists?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...

It's about severity not frequency. You too go on the idiot list.

Why if this is about stoping murder shouldn't we look at what kills the more than rifles like the the ar15

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

More people have fists than guns.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

More people have fists than guns.

Actually its even there is 1 gun for everyone in the us.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Everybody except amputees has a fist-not everybody has a desire to own a gun. The militia members skew the gun averages.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

Everybody except amputees has a fist-not everybody has a desire to own a gun. The militia members skew the gun averages.

Still statisticly you are more likly to get beat to death than shoot with an assault rifle So why not go after fists?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

CS461, "Ok question if the gun is the problem why do country's that require gun ownership don't have these situations. Switzerland and Israel bot require ownership of these "assualr weapons" and they do not have these. That points to the problem being social or maybe lack of guns not too many."

I'll tell you why. The leftist progressives want to do away with any form of personal resposibility on the part of individuals. With rights also come personal responsibilty. The framers that gave us our rights, be them enumerated or unenumerated, understood that along with those rights came personal responsibility. So by their logic, if they remove the right to own guns, then there will be no personal resposibility for there use. Only granting state sanctioned actors the right to possess firearms, for our protection , of course. NOT!!! It is a flawed logic. It matters not what type of weapon a person owns. It matters that he uses it in a responsible way. Law abiding citizens have demonstrated their ability to use firearms of any kind responsibly. Criminals have not. So the next logical premise to that equation would be to enforce the existing laws (that have not been) and take the guns away from irresponsible criminals and prevent them fromobtaining them in the first place. You do not do this by taking away or even restrcting the rights of resposible citizens to own weapons of their choosing.

In Switzerland and Israel, responsible gun ownership and use has been taught from an early age.

There mere thought of teaching our children to have any concept of what personal responsibility entails by our schools, courts or even by parents, is blasphemy to liberals and progressive dems

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Haven't yet seen a store that sells fists-tough to regulate. You do have to go to a store or gun dealer to buy a gun.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system