Everything is better with guns

[rushmc 18]

kallend

In every First World country people die of heart disease, stroke, cancer, accidents... The USA is not an outlier in any of these areas.

ONLY in shooting death and injury is the USA an outlier among First World nations.

ONLY in the USA do we not have any effective gun control laws.

Only in the USA do we have as many toddlers as terrorists shooting people.

Only in the USA does road rage end up in a shooting on a regular basis.

Only in the USA do domestic disputes regularly end up in shootings (like in this Texas case).

(And before the false dilemma crowd gets going, effective gun laws do not have to involve outright bans or confiscation).

I was going to reply line by line until I say how much BS was in it

You selective emotional indignation is on display.

AGAIN

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***In every First World country people die of heart disease, stroke, cancer, accidents... The USA is not an outlier in any of these areas.

ONLY in shooting death and injury is the USA an outlier among First World nations.

ONLY in the USA do we not have any effective gun control laws.

Only in the USA do we have as many toddlers as terrorists shooting people.

Only in the USA does road rage end up in a shooting on a regular basis.

Only in the USA do domestic disputes regularly end up in shootings (like in this Texas case).

(And before the false dilemma crowd gets going, effective gun laws do not have to involve outright bans or confiscation).

I was going to reply line by line until I say how much BS was in it

You selective emotional indignation is on display.

AGAIN

TRANSLATION: Marc has no effective response so he waffles and punts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

effective gun laws do not have to involve outright bans or confiscation

Good, you are finally playing the ball, not the player.

What does effective gun laws have to involve?

What do you mean by "effective"?

Basically, what new restrictions for what result?

Derek V

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

It was a clickbait article.

Kinda like Speakers Corner.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

effective gun laws do not have to involve outright bans or confiscation

Good, you are finally playing the ball, not the player.

What does effective gun laws have to involve?

What do you mean by "effective"?

Basically, what new restrictions for what result?

Derek V

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

That took all of 30 seconds to think up. I'm sure you could do better given enough time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

That took all of 30 seconds to think up. I'm sure you could do better given enough time.

And how would these impact the number of firearm fatalities each year? In other words, how many mass shootings would have been prevented in the last year if these 5 new restrictions were already in place? How many murders would have been prevented?

Derek V

[normiss 622]

The very first sentence told me that and made it clear that it wasn't an article based in facts.
It was click bait. It seems it worked as well, hence your last sentence.

[gowlerk 1,911]

kallend

In every First World country people die of heart disease, stroke, cancer, accidents... The USA is not an outlier in any of these areas.

ONLY in shooting death and injury is the USA an outlier among First World nations.

ONLY in the USA do we not have any effective gun control laws.

Only in the USA do we have as many toddlers as terrorists shooting people.

Only in the USA does road rage end up in a shooting on a regular basis.

Only in the USA do domestic disputes regularly end up in shootings (like in this Texas case).

(And before the false dilemma crowd gets going, effective gun laws do not have to involve outright bans or confiscation).

Only in the USA do the people have the right to own and feel the power inherent in such a large choice of weapons. It's about freedom John. In exchange for this valuable privilege the deaths of a few toddlers, and the street shootings, and suicides, and the domestic dispute deaths are a mere inconvenience.

Where is your red white and blue pride? Independence day is just around the corner. Go out a squeeze off a couple hundred rounds like a real American. Then you'll understand.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Hooknswoop

Quote

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

That took all of 30 seconds to think up. I'm sure you could do better given enough time.

And how would these impact the number of firearm fatalities each year? In other words, how many mass shootings would have been prevented in the last year if these 5 new restrictions were already in place? How many murders would have been prevented?

Derek V

3

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

3

Which 3?

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 in 2015
1 in 2014
1 in 2013

[Hooknswoop 19]

OK, fair enough. Are these 5 restrictions on every U.S. citizen worth saving 1 incident a year?

Not emotionally, but logically.

i am not convinced it is worth these draconian measures. I get to label them draconian because The other side gets to label them common sense laws.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

What is draconian about those measures? What freedoms will people lose if those are implemented? How are those measures unconstitutional?

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,911]

Quote

I get to label them draconian because The other side gets to label them common sense laws.

I'll give you some help with that.

dra·co·ni·an

adjective: draconian

(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
synonyms: harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough; More


Unless you meant the death metal band perhaps?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Hooknswoop

OK, fair enough. Are these 5 restrictions on every U.S. citizen worth saving 1 incident a year?

Not emotionally, but logically.

i am not convinced it is worth these draconian measures. I get to label them draconian because The other side gets to label them common sense laws.

Derek V

You are asking the wrong guy. I think your 2nd amendment is idiotic.

[billvon 2,396]

>And how would these impact the number of firearm fatalities each year?

It would reduce the number of accidental deaths, since more people would get effective firearms safety training, and it would be more current.

It would reduce the incidence of criminals using private sales to avoid background checks (i.e. the "gun show loophole.")

[Hooknswoop 19]

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

Quote

What is draconian about those measures?

1. Which state's gun laws are going to made uniform? California? New York? Utah?

2. We have universal background check law here in CO. It has changed nothing and is unenforceable.

3. Record keeping. Not sure what is meant, but is sounds a lot like registration just look at how well that is working in Connecticut.

4. Not sure how reporting stolen firearms will prevent anything.

5. I'll be OK with as soon as you have to pay attend and pass a class every 2 years to exercise your right to free speech.

What makes these measures draconian is the 2nd amendment. The people to do not have to justify these rights in order to keep them.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

I already addressed the training class for a constitutional right.

Quote

It would reduce the incidence of criminals using private sales to avoid background checks (i.e. the "gun show loophole.")

If that were true, then why has the universal background check law here in Colorado been completely ineffective?

"Last month, while addressing a group of Colorado sheriffs, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper spoke on the topic of the state's 2013 measure outlawing almost all private transfers of firearms. According to the Denver Post, Hickenlooper told the sheriffs, "I think we screwed that up completely... we were forming legislation without basic facts.""

Universal background check laws are ineffective and unenforceable.

Derek V

[normiss 622]

Some people tend to skim right over the "well regulated" part as if it doesn't exist.
The NFA was a good agreement (back when our government worked that way), it should be quite simple to add a few more weapons to it.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

[billvon 2,396]

>If that were true, then why has the universal background check law here in
>Colorado been completely ineffective?

Because criminals can drive a few hours and avoid it completely.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>If that were true, then why has the universal background check law here in
>Colorado been completely ineffective?

Because criminals can drive a few hours and avoid it completely.

No. That is not the reason. You do not have to drive out of state to avoid it.

How can law enforcement prove that the owner of a firearm that was purchased in a private sale did not have a background check performed (and passed)?

They cannot. That is why the law in enforceable.

Derek V

[billvon 2,396]

>How can law enforcement prove that the owner of a firearm that was purchased in a
>private sale did not have a background check performed (and passed)?

They cannot. They can, however, arrest people who sell guns without a background check.

Some crimes are impossible to prosecute after the fact. That does not mean that enforcing laws against them is futile.

[normiss 622]

Damn, if only the government used forms when databases are accessed, this wouldn't be a problem.
Maybe that's part of why the laws need to be reviewed and tightened up.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>How can law enforcement prove that the owner of a firearm that was purchased in a
>private sale did not have a background check performed (and passed)?

They cannot. They can, however, arrest people who sell guns without a background check.

Some crimes are impossible to prosecute after the fact. That does not mean that enforcing laws against them is futile.

Sure, for illegal drugs, it happens enough that sting operations are effective. How many private gun sales are there in a year in Colorado? How big of a problem is it? Is it a good use of law enforcement's time, energy, and resources to go after private gun sales in Colorado? No, it isn't.

This law is a great example of restricting citizens rights for very little to no gain. What a waste of time and money.

A perfect example of my point that anti-gunners want restrictive laws passed that are going to make little to no difference.

Derek V