A BIG part of the gun problem...

Originally Posted by JonJon

Semantics? You are talking about crime reduction yet want to exclude killing?
I'm lost

Reducing guns acquired illegally will reduce gun related homicides. Other crimes will likely not see much of a reduction... unless those crimes need a gun to commit.

If the ATF is able to make sure gun dealers are going about their business we may likely see more videos like this:

owning a car is not a right? true.

if you believe that certain people should not be allowed to own a gun, then it is not a right either. glad we agree the second amendment should be abolished.

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer

owning a car is not a right? true.

if you believe that certain people should not be allowed to own a gun, then it is not a right either. glad we agree the second amendment should be abolished.

You just drove the conclusion highway from CA to PA in 1 mile of reasoning.

I believe some people should not own guns, yes. Those people would be either in jail or a mental institute.

Originally Posted by joeski3d

I know the difference and it doesn't take much to illustrate it and get the information out there today. Making guns black doesn't make them deadlier. Besides, it should be well known by most that hand guns are the weapon of choice for criminal activity. If there were fewer illegal guns on the streets it's hard to deny that there would be fewer gun related homicides. Let them find other means of offing the subject of their wrath. Fewer gun related incidents means less scrutiny on the whole gun community. Will homicides go down? Probably not... but it won't be as much a gun issue if the ATF could function properly.



And go after the guys that facilitate the traceless guns as well. People will be far less prone to use something for crime if that something can be traced directly to them.

His point is simple. There is no such thing as an illegal gun. A gun at a gun store is legal. All guns (unless we are talking about one snuck in through mexico with the serial number filed down) at gun stores start out as legal. Many are stolen, etc etc. There is no way to have "fewer" illegal guns, since all legal guns have the opportunity to be used in illegal activities by people breaking the law.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

All guns (unless we are talking about one snuck in through mexico with the serial number filed down)

Those are legal too.

The ACT or POSSESSION of removing a serial number is illegal, not the gun. Objects can't commit crimes.
Some argue semantics but it's an important point. Crimes and laws apply to people, not objects.

Originally Posted by JonJon

Those are legal too.

The ACT or POSSESSION of removing a serial number is illegal, not the gun. Objects can't commit crimes.
Some argue semantics but it's an important point. Crimes and laws apply to people, not objects.

Point taken.

Originally Posted by 'busa

I don't think you addressed the point of the OP at all.

Here comes Joe with a perfectly reasonable post and all he gets from JJ and the usual suspects is frothing at the mouth. You make me want to take your guns away, JJ!

Come get em bud.

Originally Posted by MrWesson

Come get em bud.

The fact that you take a joke as a threat speaks volumes about the mindset here. No, I don't want to take your guns away and no, I won't give you a gun fight that you probably have wet dreams about...

The fact that your "Come get em bud" bravado stems from the possession of weapons is sad.

Originally Posted by JonJon

You just drove the conclusion highway from CA to PA in 1 mile of reasoning.

I believe some people should not own guns, yes. Those people would be either in jail or a mental institute.

only people in jail or in a mental facility would not have guns?

how about felons who have done their time? those on probation? those with mental issues who lead normal lives, but are on medication and or in counseling? i don't believe the movie theater shooter would have been in a mental facility.

Originally Posted by 'busa

The fact that you take a joke as a threat speaks volumes about the mindset here. No, I don't want to take your guns away and no, I won't give you a gun fight that you probably have wet dreams about...

The fact that your "Come get em bud" bravado stems from the possession of weapons is sad.

Would never kill you.

Dont ever want to kill anyone.

Settle down guy. You were the one who said you would like to take away guns if you read the quote.

I thought the arrogance in thinking you could possibly possess such a power was a joke so I responded with one.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Here comes Joe with a perfectly reasonable post and all he gets from JJ and the usual suspects is frothing at the mouth. You make me want to take your guns away, JJ!

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer

only people in jail or in a mental facility would not have guns?

how about felons who have done their time? those on probation? those with mental issues who lead normal lives, but are on medication and or in counseling? i don't believe the movie theater shooter would have been in a mental facility.

JJ's world contains no shades of gray. Not 50. Not 1. Just black and white.

Originally Posted by 'busa

JJ's world contains no shades of gray. Not 50. Not 1. Just black and white.

Thats the problem. Liberals like that shade. When it comes to rights, there is no gray. You either have a right or you dont.

Originally Posted by MrWesson

Would never kill you.

Dont ever want to kill anyone.

Settle down guy. You were the one who said you would like to take away guns if you read the quote.

I thought the arrogance in thinking you could possibly possess such a power was a joke so I responded with one.

I'm good.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Thats the problem. Liberals like that shade. When it comes to rights, there is no gray. You either have a right or you dont.

So, when JJ says he wants to restrict the rights of people who are currently or have in the past suffered from mental health issues, that is NOT an infringement of their rights. How dare he discriminate against people based on their health status?

Originally Posted by 'busa

So, when JJ says he wants to restrict the rights of people who are currently or have in the past suffered from mental health issues, that is NOT an infringement of their rights. How dare he discriminate against people based on their health status?

You are cherry picking his statements. Thats not what he said.

Originally Posted by

[QUOTE='busa;15073896

So, when JJ says he wants to restrict the rights of people who are currently or have in the past suffered from mental health issues, that is NOT an infringement of their rights. How dare he discriminate against people based on their health status?

When did I say that? Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
Ex felons, blind people, deaf people, people that experienced depression at one time, etc

If someone is deemed too dangerous to own a gun, they should be too dangerous to own a knife or be in public. They should be in jail or a "home".

If we didn't waste trillions of $$$ on war and politics we would have the best healthcare and mental health facilities in the world

The BIG part of the gun problem is that people use guns to break other laws. Gun laws won't prevent a single incident. Perhaps someone gets denied a purchase, do you think they will simply say "oh well, I tried to kill someone. I guess I'll just take up knitting".

I mean, if you are going to murder someone - do you think a little theft is a problem for them?

Originally Posted by JonJon

If we didn't waste trillions of $$$ on war and politics we would have the best healthcare and mental health facilities in the world

I agree with this. I think it's time America invests in its infrastructure and pay off of our deficit.

What occurred when my CPL was approved? I was finger printed and an FBI check was run. How does that check differ from buying a pistol without a CPL?

Why would people oppose the same registration for a shotgun as a pistol?

Who has access to my pistol information?

Someone give me the cliffs on what the ATF cannot do now?

Maybe this is a better question for the gun forum.

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

The BIG part of the gun problem is that people use guns to break other laws. Gun laws won't prevent a single incident. Perhaps someone gets denied a purchase, do you think they will simply say "oh well, I tried to kill someone. I guess I'll just take up knitting".

I mean, if you are going to murder someone - do you think a little theft is a problem for them?

No chit Sherlock. Nobody ever suggested as such. The idea is to curb gun related violence... because there is no way to curb your average run of the mill violence. If you want people to quit thinking guns are bad wouldn't it be ideal to make it harder to get untraceable guns? A person is a lot less likely to kill someone with something that give a clue as to who may have used the killing tool.

Let's face it. Guns make killing easy. Their sole purpose is to put holes in things from a distance with speed and force. And the guns can be traced with a little protocol.