DaVinci

You avoided the question. It is already illegal for a FELON to own a firearm. The sentencing laws area already in place. No new laws would be needed. BUT you are also trying to put words into my mouth. I never said I didn't want new laws. I said I think we should focus on the criminals and not the honest. So you are both incorrect and presumptuous.

That same process was use to prevent citizens from being able to vote. For YOU a 15 min drive is not a big deal. How about those who work 9-5 M-F and don't have a car? It is already illegal. And you have stated several times that criminals are going to get guns. If your idea had any merit you would put the same process in place for coke and pot. But it will not work since criminals are never going to follow the law. You do know that the gun show issue is less than 3% of firearms used in crimes.... Right? The anti gunners and the media, and the well meaning but data lacking folks seem to think it is a big source.... But the data shows it is LESS THAN 3% of guns used in crime. This should not be a big surprise, but people ignore it and think that making 97% of the other honest citizens jump through more hoops will do anything. And you cannot buy a gun in a gun store without filling out paperwork, showing ID, and passing a background check. You can easily buy a bottle of beer from your buddy, or a cigar from a friend without showing ID. Why ignore that and only insist on extra steps for guns? False, that is your claim. My claim is that it is stupid to make 99.9% of the population jump through hoops in the hope that it *might* stop the 0.1% of criminals. Especially since we already know that criminals still get drugs in-spite of them being illegal. Somehow you think the same actions that do not work with criminals and drugs will suddenly work when it comes to criminals and drugs. BTW, you do know that Sandy Hook would not have been prevented by your plan right? His Mom was legal, she HAD jumped through all the hoops you want. He killed her and STOLE her firearms. As for Columbine, you do know that those two criminals had a history of mental issues and BUILT BOMBS right? Making bombs was illegal and it didn't prevent them from doing it. You can't compare a private sale to official voting. Private sale = You and I voting on where to go to dinner. Public sale = Public voting. Again, your opinion. We oppose rules that will impact honest citizens and will not do anything to stop criminals. All you have suggested is to make me jump through hoops in the hope that the criminal that sells drugs will have a problem. And passing laws that impact honest citizens while having no impact on criminals is also sheer idiocy. And when you look at the anti gun agenda (I have given it to you twice now) they know they have to take baby steps to get their goal. That 40% is a false number. It has been proven false several times. But lets just pretend it is not.... Out of that 40%, how many are to criminals? Nonsense. Like I have already stated... How did a guy with two violent convictions on his record be able to be involved in the Chicago shootings? How did he only get 'boot camp' instead of never seeing the light of day again? You want to stop violent crime? Or do you want to punish honest citizens? If you want to stop violent crime, then don't let two time violent felons walk the streets. Don't let people with known violent mental issues walk the streets. Columbine, the kids had mental illness history Aurora, the killer made death threats against the school shrink. Giffords AZ shooter had enough of a problem he was forced out of school, denied enlistment into the Army. VT the guy was sentenced to therapy I could go on and on and on..... Focus on THESE issues and leave honest gun owners alone. Unless, your goal is not to stop violent crime and is instead the same as the VPC and denying honest citizens their rights.

Well, I had to go to the voting registration office to get put on the voter roles. But maybe that was just me. Hey wait a minute! Voter registration? I have to get put on a list if I want to vote? You mean the gooberment knows where I live, keeps a record of that, just so I can exercise a Constitutional Right???? I can't just walk into any polling station, demand my right to vote, and leave it up to the gooberment to prove after the fact that I was actually not actually entitled to vote at that polling place? What kind of a country is this, anyway? Not a free one, I guess. Oh, the humanity! Don And how about that background check before you can vote? And nice that you ignored that the police have a history of denying rights.... Otherwise the voter rights act would not need to be in place. So, simple question. Would you be OK with making a voter fill out a form, show ID, and go through a background check to vote?

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you? Ah look, personal attacks.... This the best you can do?

Look at one of the people arrested in the Chicago shooting. He was a Felon (1) and was arrested for another felony (2) while carrying and using a gun (3 & 4) in a city that had no concealed weapons law (5). For being a felon and getting caught using a firearm after being a felon... He was sent to a 'boot camp'. Why was this repeat offender ever let out into society again? A violent criminal should never be in a free society. If a violent criminal is caught with a firearm or committing another violent crime, they should never see the light of day again. This would be going after the criminal and leaving honest citizens alone. As for mental health issues, if the person has serious mental health issues, they should not be allowed to own a firearm. Put their name on a list of prohibited persons. This also leaves the 99.9% of honest citizens alone.

And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse....... . I can certainly find examples of armed police making things worse. Police != armed citizens. Police HAVE to intervene... Civilians do not. A swing and a miss

Lame personal attack.... Typical for you. Maybe you should talk about the topic and not me?

According to the report, he saved 100 lives. Why, you have the same info and already have the expert opinion that it is not a good example. I am using the same source, in your opinion it is invalid. You claiming I don't have enough information to have a contrary opinion is hypocritical.... Especially when the whole report seems to agree with my opinion.

I don't even know if the story is true, so certainly don't know for a fact any of the other circumstances around it. You know what, these conversation never go anywhere. Yes, you are right, this is a shining example of how armed civilians stop mass shootings. And yet here you were already saying it was a piss poor example of the pro gun argument that they can be used in these situations..... You are right, these never go anywhere since you jump to conclusions when you think it will help you and then ignore the same data you used when it hurts your position.

true, crappy example he was only: 1 - an individual 2 - he was armed 3 - he saved a lot of people what a terrible example (note that the comment was "a marine saved a bunch of people", not "a gun saved a bunch of people" - if you want to make the argument that the person is responsible for saving, then how can you sit and argue against the object when pushing the opposite agenda.....) Well said. It is either: 1. The person 2. The weapon It can't be the person only when it is good and the weapon only when it is bad.....

I have noticed that when they claimed it was an AR it was front page.... Now that it was the same weapon that Biden said was a good SD weapon it is buried in the story on page 8. There are reasons for it.... But it would be nice if it being a shotgun was the headline, even if it was on page 8.

Do you know he didn't? And you have to recognize that putting yourself into harms way when you have a valid form of self defense is still "using" the handgun even if you don't actually fire it. You are making a guess. I'd guess that even you would be much more likely to go into a live shooting environment if you had a firearm than if you did not. Nope, because that is EXACTLY what happened. You can't just ignore data you don't like.

Sort of. Some of them are for everybody, regardless of nationality or immigration status. And some of them are not. Hence my generic reply.

And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse....... And you are ignoring that many civilians have taken better training classes than many military and I guarantee better than many LEOs. Since I have gotten out I have taken classes that were as good or better than I received in the Army (and yes, I was Infantry branch). You just assume that people just strap on a firearm and suddenly think they are Rambo (and yes, I am sure that does exist). But you think they are the norm and not the exception. Having been around guns, gun stores, shooters, ranges... etc for most of my life, I can tell you that the Rambo is the exception. Most people never want to draw a weapon.

Do you know there were not Blacks in the group? Yes. Race has nothing to do with it.... Rights are for Americans and people who are here legally. That is the beauty of rights and the Bill of Rights - They should be applied equally.

Because if you point blank as the VPC is they want to ban guns... They will say no. But then they will make every attempt to ban anything they can, then try to ban the next thing, then the next thing. They have tempered the message recently.... But look at them historically. "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.---1976, then chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields Would you support a background check to prevent felons from voting? (BTW, I don't mind a background check to buy a gun, OR vote. I DO mind when the background check turns into registration). Would you support a system where a voter had to go to a sheriff to get a ballot to vote? They had this system in the 30-60's and it ended with the Voting rights act. The problem is while your ideas SOUND good, they have been used to restrict a right more than once. The difference is that you would be upset if the same standard you want for the 2nd was applied to any other right.

Maybe you should ask him if having the gun helped him? But one thing you seem to be ignoring is that a bunch of us gun owners are former military.

FALSE. A handgun is considered a crap weapon for the military. Handguns were designed as a way to carry a weapon for DEFENSE. If you were going to attack, you would be wise to carry a rifle. How do I know this? Well I was issued both a rifle and pistol when I was in the military. We were taught to use the rifle and only use the pistol if the rifle was inop, or in very tight quarters. Where did you get your military knowledge? And if 99.9% of those who own rockets do nothing evil with them.... Then MAYBE your anger should be directed at the 0.1% that use them in crime and leave the 99.9% alone. I find it difficult to get lectured on weapons by a guy that has shown poor judgment in their use... See attached picture. The 1911 works as designed. Maybe you should explain how a 1911 design is somehow dangerous? And yet violent crime has still gone DOWN. You just did... Talking about making long guns the only weapons available. Double talk in less than one sentence. Convenient that you have ignored the history lesson I have already given you.... I'll give it to you again (and you can ignore it again). They don't do anything to stop the ATF or the FBI.... That is just you making things up. The NRA did try to prevent the CDC and there are a few reasons for that: 1. The CDC is centers for DISEASE control. Guns are not a disease. 2. The CDC had a clear agenda in the past. Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.) So when the CDC had put out some very clearly anti gun propaganda..... They had their funding pulled for being political and not scientific.

You have repeatedly stated that you see no point in arming citizens. You have questioned if citizens have been able to stop anything. You have done both and when data has been presented showing why the data you have used is incorrect, you have continued to dodge the data in favor for data that does not exist. You have stated that you doubt that arming citizens would help. If they are not armed... They what method of SD do you think they can use? You may not have flat out stated you want disarmament... But your words, when combined, show that end game. BTW this is the same tactic used by the VPC. When called out, you throw insults.... again, like the VPC. BTW here is an example of a citizen with a handgun saving 100 people http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/24/Hero-With-A-Handgun-Saved-100-People-From-Islamists-In-Mall-Attack

Just like every mass shooting event, there are plenty of 'tells' that show that this person is a danger. These are all to often ignored and only seen in retrospect. The problem is not guns, it is mental health issues. But as long as one side continues to try and blame it on the object.... We will get nowhere. The defenders of the 2nd have to defend against this stupid accusations because if we don't then we will lose a right. Look at the recent Chicago shooting. One of the people arrested was a felon and had another felony charge for using a weapon while being a felon. This person was sent to a 'boot camp'. Why was this violent felon X2 not thrown under the jail? why was he ever allowed to walk the streets a free man? Yet the anti gunners want to blame the object. Never mind that this person ignored the City wide ban on firearms, didn't have a State issued gun owner ID... No, they ignore these laws and claim we need more since the litany of stupid laws didn't work.... How about we just lock up violent criminals and never let them see the light of day again? This MIGHT stop some violence. Passing another stupid law will not.

My firearms serve many other reasons that to kill people... In fact, none of my weapons has ever..... Well OK, I have some historical pieces that might have been used in war.... But none of them have been used to kill ANYTHING since I have owned them and yet I have shot thousands of rounds through them. So your very premise is flawed. False, we have standards for firearms... In fact Bush even banned some inexpensive firearms deemed unsafe. Again, you fail. Then all of mine must be defective.... You fail again. If it did not INCREASE, then your whole premise is again proven to be false. BY GUN.... Sure, but not an increase in *suicide*. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US... Just not by gun. Canada's suicide rate stayed the same, yes by GUN it went down, but poisoning and hanging went up to cover the drop. Typically, you want to talk about gun numbers... It seems you don't care if a guy is murdered by club (more than long guns per the FBI) knife (more than long guns per the FBI), or by a good old regular beat down (yep, more than guns per the FBI). Yet the data also says that less than 400 people a year are killed by long guns of ALL types and you claim to want a ban on AR's (Which is a very small subset of long gun). They don't do anything to stop the ATF or the FBI.... That is just you making things up. The NRA did try to prevent the CDC and there are a few reasons for that: 1. The CDC is centers for DISEASE control. Guns are not a disease. 2. The CDC had a clear agenda in the past. Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.) So when the CDC had put out some very clearly anti gun propaganda..... They had their funding pulled for being political and not scientific. And they are loving the recent CDC report. The one that said more guns does not equal more gun violence. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” and “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” And that citizens that used a firearm in SD were hurt less. “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” And that guns are used in SD at least as often as criminals try to use them. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals" Accidents have declined as well. “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” So violent crimes are down, accidents are also down... And Defensive gun uses are at least as common as attacks and studies show that defensive gun uses tend to protect the innocent better than any other method. I fail to see any of that as a bad thing.

No sir.. thats what you were doing with this: "It's pretty obvious your feelings on the matter are interfering with your ability to read" And it is pathetic.

You claim you are the only one.... But you seem to parrot the VPC with every word. History would show you to be wrong. In the 30-40's 6 million Jews were killed for being Jews. In the 1860's people were killed because they didn't like your shirt, or you kicked up some dust on the way to the bar. In the 1100's torture was used to get confessions on religious grounds. In 500-400 BC Spartans would throw children into pits that didn't look healthy. Simple fact is that is a matter of numbers. If there is one whackjob for every 1M people, then if you have 1M people you have one nutter. If you have 313M then you will have 313 nutters.

Ah yes, when out of facts and logic.... start the personal attacks. If an attacker pulls a knife on me and I pull a gun in defense, that is an example of a DGU that was not also a criminal GUN use. Simple elementary logic.

Then why don't I see you trying to ban pools? Why don't I see you trying to ban bikes? Because you only dislike one thing and you don't care that your data is faulty... Your emotions control your argument. The CDC reported that guns do not increase violence. The CDC showed that DGU's are AT LEAST as common as criminal uses. You want to remove the lawful uses and only allow the criminal ones....[bat-shit crazy]