What % of American pop would have to revolt against the gov't to stand a chance??????

Originally Posted by evolved

I have yet to see any serious politician talk about banning ALL firearms.

Its a stepping stone. The next time someone blows away a theater full of people with a glock, semiautomatic pistols will be banned. People will be allowed to defend themselves (under the protection of the 2nd amendment) with flintlock rifles. Bloomberg and his butt buddy Rahm do just that.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Background checks for starters. I would like for some level of training to be mandatory, but for it to be subsidized by the Government to avoid limiting those who are not financially able to receive said training. I would even be comfortable with a written test similar to a driver's license. If you fail, you can come back next week and take it again.

I think another form of gun control is strict penalties for those who use them in crimes or acquire them for illegal means. And while it may not be a deterrent to some, it will at least hold them accountable and keep them off the streets.

I am okay with gun free zones in certain places like court rooms and schools. I understand the inherent risks of people not being able to protect themselves, but when you take a step back and realize the statistical insignificance of the events and remove yourself from the sensationalism it's really not a big risk at all.


Many things we already have in place. Some simply need to be reformed. I don't think limiting people's right to a CCW benefits anyone. We simply need to hold deviants accountable.

Now, how is a law or a regulation going to hold those deviants accountable? We already do background checks. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Many states require you to take a course to get a CCW.

Why do you believe laws will stop these events?

Originally Posted by evolved

I said serious politician. Not a radical wingnut.

Ummmm, she is writing the legislation, and the PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY will sign it into law...I think she qualifies as a "serious" politician.

Originally Posted by badfast

How so? Kaput asked I provided. Perhaps he should have framed his question more specifically to get the result he wanted. But that wouldn't call for accurate results only desired ones.

You provided stats for a place that allows semiauto handguns, without magazine capacity limitations, with a LEGAL open carry law with limited restrictions.

Bravo. Monaco. Bring your gun, bring your ammo, carry it in plain view and no one gets hurt.

Thanks for the support.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Ummmm, she is writing the legislation, and the PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY will sign it into law...I think she qualifies as a "serious" politician.

She is one of many that are crafting various legislations. I doubt we'll see something as radical as what she is proposing.

Originally Posted by kaput

You provided stats for a place that allows semiauto handguns, without magazine capacity limitations, with a LEGAL open carry law with limited restrictions.

Bravo. Monaco. Bring your gun, bring your ammo, carry it in plain view and no one gets hurt.

Thanks for the support.

Np, now lets bring Monaco's gun laws here.

Originally Posted by badfast

Np, now lets bring Monaco's gun laws here.

We pretty much have them now, with some exceptions. Many of the factors you wish to make law won't fly, but many exist is some form.

And in reality, none of this stops the situations which got you all excited about this in the first place... Sandy Hook.

The shooter, was 20 which is not of legal age to carry, own, possess or use in an unsupervised situation. Both the pistols and the handguns were regulated in the state of CT.

the zone of attack, was a gun free zone, the car was not his or his mothers, and the crime of murder is still illegal.

So, even if you place a 21 year age limit on gun ownership, and require records to be kept (which even PA has to some degree in terms of transfer for Semi Auto Rifles, or new purchase with serial number, background check and signature all filed) a 20 year old child decided to break those laws put in place, and commit a crime. He was not worried of the penalty or the outcome. He went to the school to die.

Blame the rifle. When the congresswoman was shot, Glock was the evil gun of the hour. Aurora and Sandy Hook make the AR-15 the demon. Soon, an AK47 will kill some people, and that will be the demon.

I am seriously shocked that you cannot see that laws mean nothing to someone who is going to carry out a plan like this. It keeps already banned weapons out of the hands of those that cannot afford the tax stamp and NFA registration wait time to kill someone, but if it is not a rifle, it'll be a pistol. If not a pistol, then a shotgun (kinda like today), if not that a knife, or a bat, or a car, or bomb or fists, or fire. The tool is the tool, not the problem.

I agree on the mental health thing, however knowing this country, taking depression meds would make it impossible for you to pass the exam, and you would not be able to get one, which is ridiculous. Maybe I just think differently than you, but we go way overboard with definitions of crazy/terrorist... Why should I trust those same people to decide who is sane enough to have a CCW permit, and an AR-15?

Originally Posted by XKxRome0ox

does the 3% still apply today? does it take into account that the present day US military is vastly superior in armament?

Who is to say the whole military would stand with the government.

Originally Posted by kaput

We pretty much have them now, with some exceptions. Many of the factors you wish to make law won't fly, but many exist is some form.

And in reality, none of this stops the situations which got you all excited about this in the first place... Sandy Hook.

The shooter, was 20 which is not of legal age to carry, own, possess or use in an unsupervised situation. Both the pistols and the handguns were regulated in the state of CT.

the zone of attack, was a gun free zone, the car was not his or his mothers, and the crime of murder is still illegal.

So, even if you place a 21 year age limit on gun ownership, and require records to be kept (which even PA has to some degree in terms of transfer for Semi Auto Rifles, or new purchase with serial number, background check and signature all filed) a 20 year old child decided to break those laws put in place, and commit a crime. He was not worried of the penalty or the outcome. He went to the school to die.

Blame the rifle. When the congresswoman was shot, Glock was the evil gun of the hour. Aurora and Sandy Hook make the AR-15 the demon. Soon, an AK47 will kill some people, and that will be the demon.

I am seriously shocked that you cannot see that laws mean nothing to someone who is going to carry out a plan like this. It keeps already banned weapons out of the hands of those that cannot afford the tax stamp and NFA registration wait time to kill someone, but if it is not a rifle, it'll be a pistol. If not a pistol, then a shotgun (kinda like today), if not that a knife, or a bat, or a car, or bomb or fists, or fire. The tool is the tool, not the problem.

I agree on the mental health thing, however knowing this country, taking depression meds would make it impossible for you to pass the exam, and you would not be able to get one, which is ridiculous. Maybe I just think differently than you, but we go way overboard with definitions of crazy/terrorist... Why should I trust those same people to decide who is sane enough to have a CCW permit, and an AR-15?

We certainly do not have what Monaco has. Stop pretending. Why do you also keep pretending you know where I stand on the issue? I am just tired of people touting the good aspect of guns but refuse to accept the uglier side.

What do guns do? They allow me to defend myself and my family. *cheers*
What else do guns do? They allow people to kill other people more efficiently. *here comes the boos and rate comparisons to those killed by knives and dildos and a downplay of gun lethality.*

Why do guns allow you to defend yourself better than a dildo or a knife? Because you can neutralize (kill or maim) your target with ease and efficiency.

And stop claiming people will resort to more destructive means if guns are restricted. That is you trying to predict human behavior from your own ideas on how humans behave.

As a responsible gun owner I am willing to accept both the good and the bad. Those that only believe the good and try to statistics their way out of the bad are only fooling themselves. I recognize that some people will acquire guns for bad purposes and others for the good.

Originally Posted by badfast

We certainly do not have what Monaco has. Stop pretending. Why do you also keep pretending you know where I stand on the issue? I am just tired of people touting the good aspect of guns but refuse to accept the uglier side.

What do guns do? They allow me to defend myself and my family. *cheers*
What else do guns do? They allow people to kill other people more efficiently. *here comes the boos and rate comparisons to those killed by knives and dildos and a downplay of gun lethality.*

Why do guns allow you to defend yourself better than a dildo or a knife? Because you can neutralize (kill or maim) your target with ease and efficiency.

And stop claiming people will resort to more destructive means if guns are restricted. That is you trying to predict human behavior from your own ideas on how humans behave.

As a responsible gun owner I am willing to accept both the good and the bad. Those that only believe the good and try to statistics their way out of the bad are only fooling themselves. I recognize that some people will acquire guns for bad purposes and others for the good.

In the cities that have the highest crime, we do. Go figure. Try harder.

Originally Posted by badfast

We certainly do not have what Monaco has. Stop pretending. Why do you also keep pretending you know where I stand on the issue? I am just tired of people touting the good aspect of guns but refuse to accept the uglier side.

What do guns do? They allow me to defend myself and my family. *cheers*
What else do guns do? They allow people to kill other people more efficiently. *here comes the boos and rate comparisons to those killed by knives and dildos and a downplay of gun lethality.*

Why do guns allow you to defend yourself better than a dildo or a knife? Because you can neutralize (kill or maim) your target with ease and efficiency.

And stop claiming people will resort to more destructive means if guns are restricted. That is you trying to predict human behavior from your own ideas on how humans behave.

As a responsible gun owner I am willing to accept both the good and the bad. Those that only believe the good and try to statistics their way out of the bad are only fooling themselves. I recognize that some people will acquire guns for bad purposes and others for the good.

He isn't trying to pass a law basely SOLELY on the assumption of prediction (of human behavior).....you and your posse are.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

In the cities that have the highest crime, we do. Go figure. Try harder.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

He isn't trying to pass a law basely SOLELY on the assumption of prediction (of human behavior).....you and your posse are.

Why don't you just stop posting. Your assumptions are....pointless and hinder any discussion.

also question: if we have the same gun laws as Monaco, why is our crime rate significantly higher than theirs? They have few guns and a low crime rate.

Originally Posted by badfast

Why don't you just stop posting. Your assumptions are....pointless and hinder any discussion.

also question: if we have the same gun laws as Monaco, why is our crime rate significantly higher than theirs? They have few guns and a low crime rate.

Because the amount of guns available is the SOLE factor in gun violence. Im amazed you have a job that requires something other than a mop.

Put the mop down for a second and check the numbers....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Maybe this will light a fuse in a brain cell and you can understand that the number of guns held by legal citizens has very little to do with gun violence, and that gun LAWS have little to do with gun violence.

For some reason, Finland, Switzerland and Luxomberg has high gun ownership, but FAR less crime than Mexico, Russia, England, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Mexico is in the middle of drug war. Comparing any country to Mexico is bust. Yet Japan, Monaco, Lux, Switzerland, and Finland ALL have significantly lower gun ownership (and over all guns) rates than the US and lower crime. You cant explain that!

take it to the bedroom, you two.

Originally Posted by badfast

Mexico is in the middle of drug war. Comparing any country to Mexico is bust. Yet Japan, Monaco, Lux, Switzerland, and Finland ALL have lower gun ownership (and over all guns) rates than the US and lower crime. You cant explain that!

Did you ever think that those countries don't have the immigration problem, the drug problems, the gang problems, the border problems, etc? Did you ever think those are largely one race homogenous nations? Did you ever think that they are largely homogenous in socioeconomic terms....or is the fact that "guns are everywhere" the only aspect in your cherrypicking adventure?

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

I'm not disagreeing with you here but there are 2 sides to the story. Both sides use facts sparingly and fear and emotion prodigiously.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by k2pilot

This is where I think the pro-gun people start to falter, some compromise has to be made. The smartest thing to me would be a licensing system, like most things in life people should be allowed to do most anything, so long as they've been found competent and a non-hazard. In aviation we have a very difficult licensing processing, and in the end it places a great deal of faith and freedom in those deemed qualified. Then compare that to driving, licenses are easy as sin to get and we end up with a number of idiots behind the wheel. The same should be true for firearms, if we put in place a more aggressive licensing systems, it could be a compromise of increased gun safety and control, while also enabling more gun-freedoms for those of adequate competence.

The practical side of me agrees with you regarding the compromise.

But here's one thing I'm sure of: the govt is better at chipping away at liberties, curtailing freedoms, and infringing rights than it is at doing the opposite.

There are certainly examples of deregulation, repeals of laws and easing of restrictions. But the general trend for govt is the other direction. Steadily increasing restrictions in small steps, each of them sounding reasonable and common sensical at the time, that eventually total up to fairly dramatic confinement of a right or freedom. Sort of a "death by 1000 cuts" kinda thing.

So while I'm happy to consider any reasonable steps that will dramatically lessen the probability of gun violence, I'm also very wary of instituting a curtailment that's just another chip taken out of 2A rights. Once those chips get knocked off the stone, they're very difficult to glue back on.

Originally Posted by evolved

I don't think anyone is discussing a national disarming of citizens.....do you really think the government could pull that off?

All at once, no. A bit at a time? See above.

Originally Posted by Stankia

Why has this turned once again into a pointless gun debate, we had such a great start at the beginning of the thread...

Because E46OT was running low on those. There must be some kind of quota.

Originally Posted by badfast

Mexico is in the middle of drug war that also brought on a ban of all guns to citizens. I don't count drug lord on drug lord violence when it comes to statistics, because in the end we cannot control what a criminal does, regardless of the laws we write.

Fixed that for you.

Seriously, get off your high horse. Throwing around the terms like "responsible gun owner" to prove your point is hilarious. I too, am a responsible gun owner. I have many guns. Some big, some little. Some built specifically to kill your ancestors, some built to outfit the police with a reliable side arm. All are deadly, but one one has ever killed a person, and that happened long before I was born.

Gun owners are aware that the tool they use for defense is an instrument of death. That is why we treat the weapon with respect. Your frustrations about my points, and the things I say is the exact thing I feel when you bring up laws and statutes that CRIMINALS have to follow. My guns will not kill someone in a mass shooting, unless it is for defense. I know this to be a fact. My guns are well taken care of, maintained properly and always treated with respect. This does not change how a person who does not care for the law thinks. They don't care about the outcome. You have still not answered how a person who should not have legally had those weapons shot those children, regardless of the gun case, or shoebox he found them in. His intent was to break the law, kill some people and die in the process. Where or how he got the weapons should not be the issue. The issue is that he was left alone, unchecked for mental problems which resulted in this tragedy.

With this, comes the persons choice to not get treated. You cannot mandate someone get treated for a medical condition. You cannot predict when or if the person will decide that "today is the day". This is a slippery slope you are traveling on. You start locking people up for depression and mild psychological issues, you are infringing on their rights as well. You over step the 2nd amendment, and you are doing the same.

There is no real quick, easy solution to the problem. Banning guns of any kind will not fix this, no matter how hard you hope and pray.

Originally Posted by kaput

Fixed that for you.

Seriously, get off your high horse. Throwing around the terms like "responsible gun owner" to prove your point is hilarious. I too, am a responsible gun owner. I have many guns. Some big, some little. Some built specifically to kill your ancestors, some built to outfit the police with a reliable side arm. All are deadly, but one one has ever killed a person, and that happened long before I was born.

Gun owners are aware that the tool they use for defense is an instrument of death. That is why we treat the weapon with respect. Your frustrations about my points, and the things I say is the exact thing I feel when you bring up laws and statutes that CRIMINALS have to follow. My guns will not kill someone in a mass shooting, unless it is for defense. I know this to be a fact. My guns are well taken care of, maintained properly and always treated with respect. This does not change how a person who does not care for the law thinks. They don't care about the outcome. You have still not answered how a person who should not have legally had those weapons shot those children, regardless of the gun case, or shoebox he found them in. His intent was to break the law, kill some people and die in the process. Where or how he got the weapons should not be the issue. The issue is that he was left alone, unchecked for mental problems which resulted in this tragedy.

With this, comes the persons choice to not get treated. You cannot mandate someone get treated for a medical condition. You cannot predict when or if the person will decide that "today is the day". This is a slippery slope you are traveling on. You start locking people up for depression and mild psychological issues, you are infringing on their rights as well. You over step the 2nd amendment, and you are doing the same.

There is no real quick, easy solution to the problem. Banning guns of any kind will not fix this, no matter how hard you hope and pray.

you are impossible. and it is not only because of the failed ways you frame arguments and abide by false correlations. And you constantly prove this by approaching me as some die hard gun grabber--when I am not. It is no surprise than that everything you read from starts with a negative perception of what I will say. I don't take you as an open minded individual just someone that is widely susceptible to misinformation and whatever conforms to his preconceived views. You not only prove it here, but in the conspiracy theories that you believe in and defend.