laws don't deter criminals.

a reply to: Blueracer
You misunderstood everything, and left out the most important thing....

If i should limit it to my country with strict gun laws, we have all the rights to own guns, though it requires a lot to get the permits.

So no loss of freedom as even with very strict gun laws you can still own guns, but the strict gun laws also keep the guns away from the wrong hands, not entirely but it's not easy to acquire a gun legal or illegal.

a reply to: Gothmog

There will always be guns illegally or stolen from private owners, though the number and type of guns is very limited, you never hear about armed robbery, armed home invasions or like, here.

It might be you can't remove guns from the wrong hands completely, though you can make it very hard for people to obtain a gun.

a reply to: Mianeye

Being a law abiding citizen, having someone else decide whether you can, or cannot, have a gun is not freedom. If they think they need a gun, it should not be up to you to tell them that they cannot have it. That is not freedom, to me.

I think it's funny that anyone believes they can round up 350 or so million firearms.

The snooty comments from people in countries with less than a third of the US population is particularly amusing.

You want us to give up our guns? Come across the pond and try to take them.

originally posted by: TomLawless
I think it's funny that anyone believes they can round up 350 or so million firearms.

The snooty comments from people in countries with less than a third of the US population is particularly amusing.

You want us to give up our guns? Come across the pond and try to take them.

There are 742 million people in Europe were the majority of the countries have very strict gun laws and nowhere near the gun violence as in the US with 300 mill+ people, not to mention Asia with 4.4 billion.

No one, not me anyway want's to take your guns, i just saying that the US has a sick society with easy access to guns, it's pretty stupid to arm the people when a big part can't handle it.

Not a single person who has disagreed has given a rebuttal to my arguments.

originally posted by: Mianeye

originally posted by: TomLawless
I think it's funny that anyone believes they can round up 350 or so million firearms.

The snooty comments from people in countries with less than a third of the US population is particularly amusing.

You want us to give up our guns? Come across the pond and try to take them.

There are 742 million people in Europe were the majority of the countries have very strict gun laws and nowhere near the gun violence as in the US with 300 mill+ people, not to mention Asia with 4.4 billion.

No one, not me anyway want's to take your guns, i just saying that the US has a sick society with easy access to guns, it's pretty stupid to arm the people when a big part can't handle it.

But your argument is it was done on continents X and Y, therefore (you're implying) it can be done on continent Z. That's nonsense. The United States is not Europe and Asia. Try banning alcohol and cigarets in Europe and Asia; that is a proper equivalent to what it would be like to ban guns in the United States.
And...
The whole US society is sick, or just some of it? What is this "big" part you mention? I'd like to see the facts and statistics on this "big" part of US society that can't handle guns.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

But your argument is it was done on continents X and Y, therefore (you're implying) it can be done on continent Z.

I never said that, here is what i said.

It's tricky in the US though, as there are already 300 mil+ guns in the hands of the public so laws and bans would have no immediate effect, it would take decades or more to see an effect.

What is this "big" part you mention? I'd like to see the facts and statistics on this "big" part of US society that can't handle guns.

Of course, here you are, click the numbers for a breakdown and news article for all incidents.

CLICK ME

US gun violence 2016
Total Number of Incidents 27,815

Number of Deaths 7,205

Number of Injuries 14,843

Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured 320

Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured 1,557

Mass Shooting 179

Officer Involved Incident Officer Shot/Killed 173

Officer Involved Incident Perpetrator Shot/Killed 966

Home Invasion 1,169

Defensive Use 854 Accidental Shooting 1,185

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Aristotelian1

What is this "big" part you mention? I'd like to see the facts and statistics on this "big" part of US society that can't handle guns.

Of course, here you are, click the numbers for a breakdown and news article for all incidents.

CLICK ME

Home 2016 Total Number of Incidents 27,815 Number of Deaths 7,205 Number of Injuries 14,843 Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured 320 Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured 1,557 Mass Shooting 179 Officer Involved Incident Officer Shot/Killed 173 Officer Involved Incident Perpetrator Shot/Killed 966 Home Invasion 1,169 Defensive Use2 854 Accidental Shooting 1,185

This does not answer my question. I'm looking for facts and statistics about the big part of PEOPLE in the United States who can't handle guns. BIG part of PEOPLE. Those statistics quantify the effects of guns on others but don't quantify the cause. Indeed a very small amount of people cause a big effect;gun violence wise.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

This is incorrect. Laws don't deter all criminals, but there are definitely people out there who don't do things because it is illegal.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Blueracer
You misunderstood everything, and left out the most important thing....

If i should limit it to my country with strict gun laws, we have all the rights to own guns, though it requires a lot to get the permits.

So no loss of freedom as even with very strict gun laws you can still own guns, but the strict gun laws also keep the guns away from the wrong hands, not entirely but it's not easy to acquire a gun legal or illegal.

I wonder why so many people have so much trouble understanding the difference between the words "restriction" and "ban". They aren't interchangeable, yet gun rights advocates largely pretend that they are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"..not be infringed." That would be the appropriate reason.

I believe guns should be available to citizens who exhibit the responsibility to own them.

As a CCL holder I had to take a training course that included book and practical use and safety protocol. Having not owned a gun or hardly ever shot one this course was great. It took 3-4 months to get the license which required a large fee and extensive background check. This license allows me to buy a hand gun without having a three day wait.

Based on my experience below are laws that I would be open too:

1. Mandatory waiting periods for ALL gun purchases unless you have a CCL
2. Mandatory training/safety class prior to buying your first firearm.
3. Mandatory re cert of training & background check every 2 years.
4. No gun purchases for 10 years for those who have been convicted of aggravated assaults of any kind
5. No open carry period.
6. with the exclusion of courthouse or govt buildings or schools(that have security) that are staffed with security there should be no "gun free" zones. We have already seen that those to harm with seek out gun free zones. Keep in mind only those that have a CCL license are legally allowed to carry and those people went through basic training and extensive background check so it wouldnt be like everyone would be walking around packing heat.

I do not support laws that seek to limit semi automatic firearms or capacity. Criminals will always have access to an Ak or an AR with 30 round mags so I should be able to meet a potential threat with the same level of fire power.

Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aristotelian1

This is incorrect. Laws don't deter all criminals, but there are definitely people out there who don't do things because it is illegal.

I would reply but I don't know what to say, I can't make sense of your post. Laws don't deter all criminals and some people follow the law? That's all I got out of your post. Can you clarify?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"..not be infringed." That would be the appropriate reason.

Infringed is a loose word. Gun control has existed in this country since it was founded. So I have no problems with gun restrictions and that phrase since even the founding fathers lived in a country with gun control measures on the books.

Nation's founders balanced gun rights with public safety

Hell the NRA used to lobby FOR gun control, not against it. It wasn't until gun control measures started effecting white people that the NRA started to change its tune.

The NRA once supported gun control

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I'm saying that there are people on the fence who WILL be detered not to do something because it is illegal, but have no qualms against doing it if it weren't illegal. It's just not 100% effective, that's where this cliche came from.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aristotelian1

I'm saying that there are people on the fence who WILL be detered not to do something because it is illegal, but have no qualms against doing it if it weren't illegal. It's just not 100% effective, that's where this cliche came from.

Oh okay. So do you agree with my arguments and if you don't, do you have rebuttals?

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Obviously, I disagree. The whole reasoning behind "laws don't deter criminals" is based on political rhetoric as well as overlooking the fact that the people it DID deter were successfully deterred before they became criminals.

Plus the narrative of the liberal agenda banning guns is false. Restriction != ban. Gun restrictions are a-ok according to the Constitution and the founding fathers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Blueracer
You misunderstood everything, and left out the most important thing....

If i should limit it to my country with strict gun laws, we have all the rights to own guns, though it requires a lot to get the permits.

So no loss of freedom as even with very strict gun laws you can still own guns, but the strict gun laws also keep the guns away from the wrong hands, not entirely but it's not easy to acquire a gun legal or illegal.

I wonder why so many people have so much trouble understanding the difference between the words "restriction" and "ban". They aren't interchangeable, yet gun rights advocates largely pretend that they are.

I responded to this. IMO education and training is the most important. Education being paramount.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Obviously, I disagree. The whole reasoning behind "laws don't deter criminals" is based on political rhetoric as well as overlooking the fact that the people it DID deter were successfully deterred before they became criminals.

Plus the narrative of the liberal agenda banning guns is false. Restriction != ban. Gun restrictions are a-ok according to the Constitution and the founding fathers.

Okay so give rebuttals to my arguments. Right now you're just saying "nu-uh."