Another school shooting

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...-without-guns/

Maybe you should have vehicle control.

Maybe you should quit looking to foreign countries to prove your points.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

What is gas lighting is your odd use of "facts". You are not even following the "facts" of your article. Funny how the article says california bans "assult rifles". first there is no such thing. Second, california does not ban them. They ban certain features and' or make you register rifles without those features differently. Funny thing is that you nor they understand what is actually the legal registered portion of these so called "assault weapons".

Good question on black listing. What if I don't agree with the words you say. Can I get you blacklisted from using the internet or attending college where you may have to write a paper for a number of years?

How about this. How about we ban all kids with bad grades, alcohol or week usage as a minor, speeding ticket or other unacceptable social behavior until 25 or beyond from driving:



as you can see vehicle deaths are still higher than ALL GUN Deaths. Considering (according to your article) 22,000 of the 30,000 gun deaths are actually suicide, the murder rate is very low and especially low compared to vehicle deaths.

Knock out the top 5 to 10 democrat cities, we have a murder rate less than most of those pointed to liberal European countries even with all our guns and theirs outlawed.

while this is an emotional topic, your use of logic is displaced. Did you go on an online screed when that kid mowed down and killed the 9 motorcyclists less than a month ago or didn't the democrats put out the memo on the TeeVee to tell you to go to work on guns?

Wow dude, comparing auto deaths to gun deaths. Tens of millions of cars on the US roads at any time. What next? Are you going to show us a graph showing us that cancer kills more than guns?

And speaking of logic, why don't we use the delusional logic of a right-winger? You know the one where you guys proclaim, "Well, criminals are going to break the law anyway, so why have any gun regulations?" Why don't we get rid of speed limits? People are going to speed, so why do we need them? Stop signs; hell, people run those all of the times so let's just get rid of those, as well?

Originally Posted by joeshmoe

No, only if a kid gets kicked out of school, then he would Not be able to buy a gun until he is 25, what's wrong with that? Now, as far as the car deaths go, won't it be awesome when all of the cars are autonomous and we have O deaths! Anyways, there are millions of cars on the road and there are VERY FEW cars on the road with drivers trying to kill people, that's why it's called an accident when people die. There are millions and millions of cars passing each other at over 100 mph only separated by a double yellow line, it is amazing there are less than 100 deaths every day, but most of those deaths are caused by drunk drivers, speeding or people using their phones. If you drive, do not drink, speed, or text! And if you kill someone, even accidentally, you will go to jail. You do not buy a car to go out and kill someone, even though it happens every day, so to use the analogy, that buying an automobile is worse than buying a gun to kill people is ludicrous!

There are a few good talking points.

First point:

owning a firearm is a RIGHT. just like your ability to type this is a right. You also have the right of free association and religion among rights. Removing rights is taken very seriously and while we can debate the equal application of justice, it is a highly debated peer reviewed process with many checks and balances. You don't take peoples rights away because Jr can't pass Alegbra and cusses out the teacher. You should look up all the famous people who were kicked out of school Some are billionaries and many famous entertainers.

Second point:

Of the gun deaths that you are speaking about, only 500 to 1000 a year are accidents. There are over 250 million guns in America and only that many accidents. The rest are wilful acts. Around 20,000 or so are suicide. God rest their souls. Guns were just a tool. The 11,000 or so murders with guns are categorized in this 2011 CDC report from National Vital Statistics,

Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011
by Donna L. Hoyert, Ph.D., and Jiaquan Xu, M.D., Division of Vital Statistics

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.

Another study shows that in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and Washington D.C, 25% of all murder by gun happens in those 4 cities.

So 1650 murder in the whole rest of the country and if you count California alone, there are over 1,000 a year there.

All these place have the strictest gun control laws but contribute to almost all the violence.

In the mean time regardless of accident, you are still have over 5 million crashes each year killing 30,000 to 40,000 in vehicles and injuring over 2.2 million each year like clockwork. According to safety people, there is not such thing as an accident. There is always a trigger to an "accident". Question is, was it on purpose or even negligent. Are all people shot in those democrat city gang attacks the intended victims?

If you drive a car and are impaired then you basically murdered someone.

As far as your very few people in cars trying to kill people, they are keeping those stats close to the vest. Hard to find those stats. There are many subtle types of homicide and manslaughter associated with vehicles. Point is, it is ton compared to non gang murders.

If you want to go to drug overdoses, those are over 40,000 a year too. Oddly enough many of those gun murders are done to get people their drugs so they can screed about guns online.

Originally Posted by wake77

Wow dude, comparing auto deaths to gun deaths. Tens of millions of cars on the US roads at any time. What next? Are you going to show us a graph showing us that cancer kills more than guns?

And speaking of logic, why don't we use the delusional logic of a right-winger? You know the one where you guys proclaim, "Well, criminals are going to break the law anyway, so why have any gun regulations?" Why don't we get rid of speed limits? People are going to speed, so why do we need them? Stop signs; hell, people run those all of the times so let's just get rid of those, as well?

You guys make those arguments against drugs. Legalize them all many on here say even though they kill 40,000 plus a year in overdoses.

I have a few guns at home. I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone. There are over 250,000 million guns in the hands of people at any given time. Like I said, get rid of democrat cities, at we have less of an issue than sweden. Oddly enough, the highest gun crime areas are the ones where there are extremely tight gun laws. Where did that person in Texes go for his terror campaign? A mall with a policy of no concealed carry in a state that welcomes concealed carry.

Another looney bin liberal idea, give away our rights to the government because you can not keep your people under control.

A guy with a gun stopped a mass shooting at Walmart, another soft target. Way more effective than anything the lunatic left has put forth. So lets bury the story lease the sheep change their minds on giving up their control to the Gov whos ran by "literally Hitler".

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You guys make those arguments against drugs. Legalize them all many on here say even though they kill 40,000 plus a year in overdoses.

I have a few guns at home. I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone. There are over 250,000 million guns in the hands of people at any given time. Like I said, get rid of democrat cities, at we have less of an issue than sweden. Oddly enough, the highest gun crime areas are the ones where there are extremely tight gun laws. Where did that person in Texes go for his terror campaign? A mall with a policy of no concealed carry in a state that welcomes concealed carry.

Another looney bin liberal idea, give away our rights to the government because you can not keep your people under control.

How come you can just dismiss the 20,000 annual suicide deaths but then complain about ODs? Aren't they very similar? If not why not?

you cite high crime in areas with high regulation. Are you suggesting that the regulation causes the crime or that areas with a lot of criminal activity have lots of law breakers? You aren't suggesting that because laws get broken by criminals that we shouldn't have laws (see for example your first paragraph about "you guys" and drugs)?

I think the point is when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Those big, libtard cities can pass any law they want and it isn't gonna fix or change anything except to make things harder on law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a wake77 about obeying any laws.

Originally Posted by markj

I think the point is when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Those big, libtard cities can pass any law they want and it isn't gonna fix or change anything except to make things harder on law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a wake77 about obeying any laws.

exactly.


Why do the gun grabbers try to use suicide as argument for gun control? If people want to kill themselves, they will. If people want to kill many people, they will. We've seen mass murder from trucks, we saw a guy in China kill 33 with a sword, we just saw a Mexican kill other Mexicans which doesn't fit the narrative so it's not highly reported. We just saw a mass shooting in Dayton that doesn't fit the narrative so it's not getting the attention. Those are the facts that prove you don't give AF about guns, you care about trying to control a portion of the population you don't agree with under the guise of making others safer or these things would be reported equally. But they're not & it's exactly why the right is going to fight this tooth & nail & just like in New Zeland, no body is going to turn in their guns but they'll create a bigger black market for them. How did prohibition work out? Libs love to argue it did nothing & people still got their booze.

Not one iota of crap the left has put forward has stopped a mass shooting. The ONLY thing that has is another person with a gun or the guy whos weapon jammed & then he got jumped.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

How come you can just dismiss the 20,000 annual suicide deaths but then complain about ODs? Aren't they very similar? If not why not?

you cite high crime in areas with high regulation. Are you suggesting that the regulation causes the crime or that areas with a lot of criminal activity have lots of law breakers? You aren't suggesting that because laws get broken by criminals that we shouldn't have laws (see for example your first paragraph about "you guys" and drugs)?

What can you say about suicide deaths? It is part of the mental health issues in the country. Then again, maybe our rate is similar to the rest of the world or maybe we did not have this many historically because the world had some good ol bloody wars so people can get their death wish by charging a machine gun or war refocused the masses with a cause to live for. Hard telling. At the end of the day if someone is going to kill themselves, there are many ways and blaming the way they do it is not a real discussion point.

As far as OD's. Guns don't draw you in at a party or after a surgery and put their hooks into you until you over do it while chasing the dragon. While I am sure some people OD for suicide, some of them are people chasing pleasure and some of them are also trying to medicate mental health issues. If it is mental health, what can you do? You can not make a person commit themselves. You can't detain them against their will. If we could the whole network of MSNBC would have been detained a long time ago.

I would say the regulation does nothing to deter crime. It is the culture of the people and the evil in any given individuals heart. England is now engaging in knife control measures. You want the government registering your steak knives? Like Mark pointed out, the only people who will have guns are the criminals that are bent on using them on other people anyway which is already illegal. Now you just open it up to other crimes like rape, home invasion robbery, etc.

Aren't you guys suggesting the war on drugs doesn't work so we should make drugs legal? Heard that stupid argument over and over.

So much of the blame on the gun is stupid and the need to remove them in history is always by a group who is trying to subjegate the masses. Considering the democrat party has a long history of this and all of their associated left wing governments in history, I will take a very strict PASS on this.

On mental health issue. What can you say again. You are seeing a real uptick in California. Mass homelessness. Middle class dying. Why? Regulations and the regulations that cause the cost of basic living from being accessed by even the middle class. I am sure you just love the fact that ol California stuck it to Trump with higher effeciency regulations. I am also sure you true believers love it that california also passed a law that mandates 100% renewables (which is a lie unless the state is going to put in giant batteries). All that means is the regular people are not going to be able to afford energy or vehicles. It is already happening. PG&E is getting expensive. I could not even give away a car that was running well because it had a fault light on. New cars are well over $20,000 and the registration and insurance is even more out of control. So, are we really having a mental health issue or is it a government sponsored attack on the people and created dispair?

how about the Missouri kid walking thru walmart in full tacticool gear, gun slung around his neck and 100 rnds of ammo?? lucky to survive that level of stupidity

^From Portland no less.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You guys make those arguments against drugs. Legalize them all many on here say even though they kill 40,000 plus a year in overdoses.

I have a few guns at home. I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone. There are over 250,000 million guns in the hands of people at any given time. Like I said, get rid of democrat cities, at we have less of an issue than sweden. Oddly enough, the highest gun crime areas are the ones where there are extremely tight gun laws. Where did that person in Texes go for his terror campaign? A mall with a policy of no concealed carry in a state that welcomes concealed carry.

Another looney bin liberal idea, give away our rights to the government because you can not keep your people under control.

I have never made an argument about legalization of drugs with the exception of marijuana. Besides, the ones killing the most are the ones legally manufactured by drug companies.

Well, let's apply your logic to other things. Why do we forbid countries from having nuclear weapons? I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone.

And where did you see the mall had "a policy of no concealed carry"?

Originally Posted by markj

I think the point is when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Those big, libtard cities can pass any law they want and it isn't gonna fix or change anything except to make things harder on law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a wake77 about obeying any laws.

Who is saying "outlaw guns"? Why do you dumbasses act as thought there can be no middle ground? Sensible gun regulations is not seize all guns from citizens.

Why have any laws at all?

Originally Posted by denverd1

how about the Missouri kid walking thru walmart in full tacticool gear, gun slung around his neck and 100 rnds of ammo?? lucky to survive that level of stupidity

It was probably Mark's butt buddy. Guys like them think that kind of stuff makes their two inch peckers grow. But ask Mark's wife, she'll tell you it's not true.

Originally Posted by wake77

Who is saying "outlaw guns"? Why do you dumbasses act as thought there can be no middle ground? Sensible gun regulations is not seize all guns from citizens.

Why have any laws at all?

We already have a middle ground. Outlawing weapons based on the way they look is stupid as stupid can be.

Machine guns are already heavily regulated. What more do you need? You are not changing anything else. This is a human issue.

Originally Posted by wake77

I have never made an argument about legalization of drugs with the exception of marijuana. Besides, the ones killing the most are the ones legally manufactured by drug companies.

Well, let's apply your logic to other things. Why do we forbid countries from having nuclear weapons? I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone.

And where did you see the mall had "a policy of no concealed carry"?

The drug company ones are the documented ones. Plenty from other hard core drugs.

You ever thought that the increase of mental illness could be caused by marijuana? It does have an impact on the developing brain. Matter of fact mental health experts will tell you that your emotional growth pretty much stops the day that you start using drugs (including weed).

Originally Posted by wake77

I have never made an argument about legalization of drugs with the exception of marijuana. Besides, the ones killing the most are the ones legally manufactured by drug companies.

Well, let's apply your logic to other things. Why do we forbid countries from having nuclear weapons? I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone.

And where did you see the mall had "a policy of no concealed carry"?

https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones
For good reason these self-congratulatory zones have become a way of death.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Originally Posted by wake77

I have never made an argument about legalization of drugs with the exception of marijuana. Besides, the ones killing the most are the ones legally manufactured by drug companies.

Well, let's apply your logic to other things. Why do we forbid countries from having nuclear weapons? I have yet seen one of them get up and go kill anyone.

And where did you see the mall had "a policy of no concealed carry"?

actually I have seen the reports on nuclear devices getting up and killing someone. Usually based on ignorance of the situation or being too caviler, but it happens.

You really need someone to explain to you why we try and keep Iran and others like that from having nuclear weapons? It is done so they do not have an equal seat at the world table and rightfully so. Just like you democrats want to keep people from having guns for protection.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones
For good reason these self-congratulatory zones have become a way of death.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

That is not proof that the mall in El Paso was a "gun-free zone". And maybe it's because I live in TN, but I have never seen an "armed security guard" in any of the Walmarts I have visited. Come to think about it, I have never seen an "armed security guard" in any of the Walmarts I have visited in different states.

The whole "Gun-Free Zone" argument is BS anyway. Even if the mall in El Paso was a self-described "Gun Free Zone" (which it wasn't), there is no criminal penalty in TX for violating that type of law.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

actually I have seen the reports on nuclear devices getting up and killing someone. Usually based on ignorance of the situation or being too caviler, but it happens.

You really need someone to explain to you why we try and keep Iran and others like that from having nuclear weapons? It is done so they do not have an equal seat at the world table and rightfully so. Just like you democrats want to keep people from having guns for protection.

Oh yeah? Who knew that nuclear weapons are able to move around on their own? You have to be effing with me right now.

You really need to examine my comments more closely. Who was advocating "Iran and others" from having nuclear weapons? Not me. You totally missed the point. The argument was that weapons (whether it's a handgun, a shotgun, a bazooka, an a-bomb, whatever) should not be allowed in the hands of the wrong people.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

We already have a middle ground. Outlawing weapons based on the way they look is stupid as stupid can be.

Machine guns are already heavily regulated. What more do you need? You are not changing anything else. This is a human issue.

It most certainly is not "a human issue". It's a number issues. We have more private gun ownership than any other country on this planet. It shouldn't be a surprise that we have the most gun crimes. It's why we have become immune when a toddler finds his "responsible gun owner" dad's pistol lying around and blows his or his siblings head off.

Originally Posted by wake77

That is not proof that the mall in El Paso was a "gun-free zone". And maybe it's because I live in TN, but I have never seen an "armed security guard" in any of the Walmarts I have visited. Come to think about it, I have never seen an "armed security guard" in any of the Walmarts I have visited in different states.

The whole "Gun-Free Zone" argument is BS anyway. Even if the mall in El Paso was a self-described "Gun Free Zone" (which it wasn't), there is no criminal penalty in TX for violating that type of law.

It was the profile he apparently stated in his manafesto of the type of place he was looking for.

Originally Posted by wake77

Oh yeah? Who knew that nuclear weapons are able to move around on their own? You have to be effing with me right now.

You really need to examine my comments more closely. Who was advocating "Iran and others" from having nuclear weapons? Not me. You totally missed the point. The argument was that weapons (whether it's a handgun, a shotgun, a bazooka, an a-bomb, whatever) should not be allowed in the hands of the wrong people.

So are you saying that the American public is the wrong people to have guns or is it just the correct type of citizens that get guns?

Originally Posted by wake77

It most certainly is not "a human issue". It's a number issues. We have more private gun ownership than any other country on this planet. It shouldn't be a surprise that we have the most gun crimes. It's why we have become immune when a toddler finds his "responsible gun owner" dad's pistol lying around and blows his or his siblings head off.

While a tragic event, it is statistically not relevant. Why was crime going down while gun ownership was going up for the last couple decades if access to guns is the issue? We also have less assaults or serious assaults than other countries. unless I am missing something we are not even top 100.

We are 15th in home invasions and get this, we have been trending down since 2005 while gun ownership has been trending up.

14th in rape and we have been trending down since 2005 as well. You know what the gun ownershp has done in that time.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-countys-says/

Most homicides in U.S. occurred in 5 percent of counties, says study

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

While a tragic event, it is statistically not relevant. Why was crime going down while gun ownership was going up for the last couple decades if access to guns is the issue? We also have less assaults or serious assaults than other countries. unless I am missing something we are not even top 100.

We are 15th in home invasions and get this, we have been trending down since 2005 while gun ownership has been trending up.

14th in rape and we have been trending down since 2005 as well. You know what the gun ownershp has done in that time.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-countys-says/

Most homicides in U.S. occurred in 5 percent of counties, says study

Oh give me a break. Are you honestly going to try to connect a decrease in rapes to gun ownership?
The country's debt continues to rise, gun ownership has too. Maybe those two are also connected.

How's those back ground checks trump was talking about coming along?

Originally Posted by ralph

How's those back ground checks trump was talking about coming along?

His daddy at the NRA said it was a no-go. A man that proclaims he is worth billions is worried about a few mil in contributions from the NRA. So much for "draining the swamp". Trump is a whore to the lobbyists just like all of the other politicians in DC.

Originally Posted by ralph

How's those back ground checks trump was talking about coming along?

Did back ground checks stop any of the crimes that were committed? Asking for a friend. Turns out my friend is interested in emotional positions of pre-adolescent school girls.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Did back ground checks stop any of the crimes that were committed? Asking for a friend. Turns out my friend is interested in emotional positions of pre-adolescent school girls.

Once again totally missing the point, the point isn't that back ground checks work, the point is trump said he was going to add them then two weeks later says you already have them.

Originally Posted by ralph

Once again totally missing the point, the point isn't that back ground checks work, the point is trump said he was going to add them then two weeks later says you already have them.

We do have them. So what is the point? The gun show loop hole was always a lie.

You really should actually learn our laws instead of believing the bullcrap written by people who never actually tried to exercise the laws they write about. You do realize that the articles you tend to read about guns are written by people who are scared of guns and never owned one yet they write about the process like they actually know what they process is.

Originally Posted by ralph

Once again totally missing the point, the point isn't that back ground checks work, the point is trump said he was going to add them then two weeks later says you already have them.

Triggered!!!!

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

We do have them. So what is the point? The gun show loop hole was always a lie.

You really should actually learn our laws instead of believing the bullcrap written by people who never actually tried to exercise the laws they write about. You do realize that the articles you tend to read about guns are written by people who are scared of guns and never owned one yet they write about the process like they actually know what they process is.

Why do you keep avoiding the question and changing the subject?

Again, before Trump spoke to the master at the NRA, he was proclaiming he was for more involved background checks, then it was no. Why did he say it (along with plenty of GOP senators) and then back down? Just start by answering that question.

Originally Posted by womble2womble

Triggered!!!!

Your not very good at this, your supposed to taunt someone with "triggered" after they rage post you. Try to keep up.

Originally Posted by wake77

Why do you keep avoiding the question and changing the subject?

Again, before Trump spoke to the master at the NRA, he was proclaiming he was for more involved background checks, then it was no. Why did he say it (along with plenty of GOP senators) and then back down? Just start by answering that question.

Because he repeated the same line as you people do. He never bought a gun in his life. He more than likely accepted that bull crap as a truth. Then he actually got advised of what the law is and realized what people who have bought guns already know. There are already background checks in place to buy a gun. \

Pretty simple really

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Because he repeated the same line as you people do. He never bought a gun in his life. He more than likely accepted that bull crap as a truth. Then he actually got advised of what the law is and realized what people who have bought guns already know. There are already background checks in place to buy a gun. \

Pretty simple really

So out of all his advisers, all of these "great people" he hires, it took a conversation with Wayne L. (Leader of the NRA, gun lobbyist) before he was "advised" of the law? I'm calling BS on your explanation. Only to a Trump supporter, would your response be reasonable.

Originally Posted by wake77

So out of all his advisers, all of these "great people" he hires, it took a conversation with Wayne L. (Leader of the NRA, gun lobbyist) before he was "advised" of the law? I'm calling BS on your explanation. Only to a Trump supporter, would your response be reasonable.

You have no idea what conversations were had and when.

Here is a test. You live in a big anyone can have a gun (or 20) state. Try and buy a gun down at the gun store. Report back to us what you had to go through to buy it.

Another today in Texas. Shooter was angry white dude, *checks notes for proper response* Thoughts and Prayers.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You have no idea what conversations were had and when.

Here is a test. You live in a big anyone can have a gun (or 20) state. Try and buy a gun down at the gun store. Report back to us what you had to go through to buy it.

Why bother going to a gun store, can't you just buy a gun via private sale with no checks what so ever?

Ralph is correct on that. I am pro gun but seeing what you can buy off armslist is pretty crazy.

Originally Posted by ralph

Why bother going to a gun store, can't you just buy a gun via private sale with no checks what so ever?

Yeah wrong again. There are approx. 20 states left that don't require private parties to do the purchase through a licensed gun store with appropriate background checks. Every weapon I've purchased private party is meeting at a store our choosing, then hanging out while background checks on BOTH of us are done. Every state is a felony to knowingly sell a weapon to a convicted felon or a person under 21 (21 applies to private party sales). Only one state has no laws or restrictions in place but it's Wyoming, most there are not going to sell guns to shady people & people looking to kill aren't driving to WY to buy a gun. You also leave out the vast majority of fire arm owners don't just sell their stuff to unknown parties for obvious reasons. I sure as hell wouldn't sell a pistol then have it used in a crime & no proof I sold it. Derp. Don't you ever get tired talking out your ass about things you don't know? I could get an illegal gun downtown faster than I could get a legally owned weapon from a private seller. And yes I do know, I buy & sell guns a lot

Originally Posted by psudy

Ralph is correct on that. I am pro gun but seeing what you can buy off armslist is pretty crazy.

Try to get one of the sellers to go out side of the law to sell that weapon. None will

I can't speak for every state but here in KS you can buy and sell guns by private party all day long. I sold my AR 10 on armslist. I was worried about it too so I contacted the sheriff to see if I needed to do anything special. He said no. So unless you know the person buying it, or they straight up tell you they are a felon you did not"Knowingly" sell to a felon.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Yeah wrong again. There are approx. 20 states left that don't require private parties to do the purchase through a licensed gun store with appropriate background checks

Isn't it 22 with checks and 30 without?

Originally Posted by psudy

I can't speak for every state but here in KS you can buy and sell guns by private party all day long. I sold my AR 10 on armslist. I was worried about it too so I contacted the sheriff to see if I needed to do anything special. He said no. So unless you know the person buying it, or they straight up tell you they are a felon you did not"Knowingly" sell to a felon.

And without paperwork, you did knowingly sell. Or at the min didn't exercise caution & in todays political climate only an idiot wouldn't want proof & CYA. Those laws are coming to every state sooner than later. It's one law I completely agree with. As a buyer how do you know you're not buying a stolen gun that was already used in a crime?

Originally Posted by ralph

Isn't it 22 with checks and 30 without?

If I find time I'll look it all up & report back. Curious how you guys buy guns in NZ? Do you have to walk in & show them you've been castrated & pose no threat?

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

As a buyer how do you know you're not buying a stolen gun that was already used in a crime?

You might know a gun is stolen if it has been reported as such.

But how would you know whether the gun had been used in the commission of a crime?

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

And without paperwork, you did knowingly sell. Or at the min didn't exercise caution & in todays political climate only an idiot wouldn't want proof & CYA. Those laws are coming to every state sooner than later. It's one law I completely agree with. As a buyer how do you know you're not buying a stolen gun that was already used in a crime?

No you didn't if you were not aware they were a felon. That would be very difficult to prove in a court of law.(not public opinion). You really wouldn't know.

Listen I am not advocating for this. I am actually against it but its out there and perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You might know a gun is stolen if it has been reported as such.

But how would you know whether the gun had been used in the commission of a crime?

I would think as a buyer you would want to document the date of purchase somehow. Years ago a friend was buying a lot of guns off AL. I went with him to meet on one. It was a pretty shady deal.

Originally Posted by psudy

No you didn't if you were not aware they were a felon. That would be very difficult to prove in a court of law.(not public opinion). You really wouldn't know.

Listen I am not advocating for this. I am actually against it but its out there and perfectly legal.

No I know where you stand & you're correct, it is legal in some states & there are always some buyers who won't check but in my experience the vast majority of responsible gun owners go above to cover their own butts. Interesting to me we're debating this topic & almost all agree that is one loop hole to be closed but not one of these shootings that I know where a weapon purchased from a private party?

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Interesting to me we're debating this topic & almost all agree that is one loop hole to be closed but not one of these shootings that I know where a weapon purchased from a private party?

The last one?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....un-report/amp/

Originally Posted by womble2womble

....not one of these shootings that I know where a weapon purchased from a private party?

Appears there is a lot you don't know about this topic. Number of states with back ground checks for private sales, number of mass shootings committed with private sale guns. Doesn't stop you having a strong opinion tho. LOL. Womble logic.

So when you said:

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Yeah wrong again. There are approx. 20 states left that don't require private parties to do the purchase through a licensed gun store with appropriate background checks.

What you actually meant was:

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

almost all agree that is one loop hole to be closed

How do you not give yourself concussion every time you sit down?

" Interesting to me we're debating this topic & almost all agree that is one loop hole to be closed "

We were simply having a discussion. Not everything needs to be debated/argued over.

Originally Posted by psudy

Not everything needs to be debated/argued over.

Yes it does!

Srsly -- it's nice to see reasonable people come to agreement from time to time.

(oops, my bad, forgive me for quoting that line from the communist manifesto)

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Yes it does!

Srsly -- it's nice to see reasonable people come to agreement from time to time.

(oops, my bad, forgive me for quoting that line from the communist manifesto)

There is no agreement. California already has the private party sales checks in place. Have for a few decades. Wasn't there 2 mass shooting here the last few years? This "agreement" is just another shovel full of dirt to help make the slope a little more sloppy and slippery. It would not be the end of the debate and the left trying to erode our rights..

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

There is no agreement. California already has the private party sales checks in place. Have for a few decades. Wasn't there 2 mass shooting here the last few years? This "agreement" is just another shovel full of dirt to help make the slope a little more sloppy and slippery. It would not be the end of the debate and the left trying to erode our rights..

I mean you do have to admit that you argue it both ways tho right? On the one hand you argue that we already have these checks in place but crime still happens and on the other hand you argue that the checks are ineffective because the next jurisdiction over doesn't have them.

If all jurisdictions regulated private party sales to the level where you live, wouldn't that prevent some guns from getting into the hands of some criminals?

Sure, "when private party gun sales are outlawed, only outlaws will sell guns private party," but that's true of all criminal activity, right? It at least keeps the law abiding citizen from unwittingly participating in a transaction with someone whose criminal background could've been revealed from a background check. I'm sure you'd agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I mean you do have to admit that you argue it both ways tho right? On the one hand you argue that we already have these checks in place but crime still happens and on the other hand you argue that the checks are ineffective because the next jurisdiction over doesn't have them.

If all jurisdictions regulated private party sales to the level where you live, wouldn't that prevent some guns from getting into the hands of some criminals?

Sure, "when private party gun sales are outlawed, only outlaws will sell guns private party," but that's true of all criminal activity, right? It at least keeps the law abiding citizen from unwittingly participating in a transaction with someone whose criminal background could've been revealed from a background check. I'm sure you'd agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing?

Did not argue that the next jurisdiction not having a check is anything. At the end of the day, if someone means to do others harm, the amount of regulation is not going to stop them. The guns used in the latest killings were purchased legally. A few years ago it was hand guns were the issue. Now it is the scary black rifle is the issue. It is always going to be an issue. Sounds to me if all you democrats turned in your guns, the world would be a safe place so lets start by disarming you.

Can you tell me without looking it up what is considered the gun for registration? The fact I posed the question to you should tell you something about it. Which part is the gun for a AR 15?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Sounds to me if all you democrats turned in your guns, the world would be a safe place so lets start by disarming you.

If you want to make an "us/them" distinction which would undoubtedly reduce gun violence, it would be smarter to start with men.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

If you want to make an "us/them" distinction which would undoubtedly reduce gun violence, it would be smarter to start with men.

while that may be true, men don't want to get rid of guns and subvert our rights. That would be the democrats. it is the democrats who want to get rid of guns, so let the democrats get rid of their guns. It can not be any more simple.

So, back to the question at hand since this registration thing is so cut and dried and will solve most of the issues.

Which part of an AR15 is considered the gun for registration purposes? Surely this is a simple answer.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Which part of an AR15 is considered the gun for registration purposes? Surely this is a simple answer.

the part with the serial number. yes, I had to look. What does that add to the discussion? Are you just making the point that federal gun laws are so disjointed as to what does and doesn't constitute the gun that it's impossible to reasonably regulate transactions? Or that it's possible to build an unregistered AR with an 80% lower?

Originally Posted by wake77

It most certainly is not "a human issue". It's a number issues. We have more private gun ownership than any other country on this planet. It shouldn't be a surprise that we have the most gun crimes. It's why we have become immune when a toddler finds his "responsible gun owner" dad's pistol lying around and blows his or his siblings head off.

How is it not a human issue? We’ve had widespread civilian gun ownership for centuries. And only recently are mass shootings (thy are not gang/crime-related) an issue.

Thompson machine guns used to be for sale at hardware stores. Didn’t hear about a bunch of deranged 20-30 year old white dudes back then shooting kids at schools. Only reason the NFA was enacted was because of mob violence during prohibition.

Originally Posted by Matt0520

How is it not a human issue? We’ve had widespread civilian gun ownership for centuries. And only recently are mass shootings (thy are not gang/crime-related) an issue.

Thompson machine guns used to be for sale at hardware stores. Didn’t hear about a bunch of deranged 20-30 year old white dudes back then shooting kids at schools. Only reason the NFA was enacted was because of mob violence during prohibition.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend. It's also very disingenuous for you to try to convey the number of guns in this country hasn't increased exponentially in these "centuries" that you mentioned.

Originally Posted by wake77

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend. It's also very disingenuous for you to try to convey the number of guns in this country hasn't increased exponentially in these "centuries" that you mentioned.

We're sorry you're such a beta cuck little pussy scared of guns. And you own shadow.

(wake77) Join Date: Jan 2009 01-12-2010, 12:37 PM Reply Quick Reply
I use an AK-47 for home defense.

Let's see that mofo get up with a full clip inside of his body.


wake77) Join Date: Jan 2009 01-12-2010, 3:43 PM Reply Quick Reply
Well...you know the ole addage, "Peace through superior firepower."


Guess girls having no interest in you changed you into a beta cuck

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

We're sorry you're such a beta cuck little pussy scared of guns. And you own shadow.

I own two. And maybe I am afraid of my own shadow, but I wouldn't flinch if you walked up to me.

Originally Posted by wake77

I own two. And maybe I am afraid of my own shadow, but I wouldn't flinch if you walked up to me.

LOL. we got us a tough guy right here

Originally Posted by wake77

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend. It's also very disingenuous for you to try to convey the number of guns in this country hasn't increased exponentially in these "centuries" that you mentioned.

Your posting about my comprehension while failing to comprehend the post you're quoting is hilarious and ironic, in a sad way.

I wasn't discussing the number of guns per capita. I was pointing out that the AVAILABILITY has done nothing but decrease over the years.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

(wake77) Join Date: Jan 2009 01-12-2010, 12:37 PM Reply Quick Reply
I use an AK-47 for home defense.

Let's see that mofo get up with a full clip inside of his body.


wake77) Join Date: Jan 2009 01-12-2010, 3:43 PM Reply Quick Reply
Well...you know the ole addage, "Peace through superior firepower."

This is hilarious.

As is anyone using a 30cal (7.62x39) for 'home defense'. The energy those carry through intermediate barriers (drywall) is wayyyy too high to be using that inside a home/apartment.

Supporting data for the above statement. Fun fact, the 5.56x45/.223 fired from the dreaded assault rifle is actually one of the safest cartridges to use inside a home or apartment. Small size + high velocity = fragmentation and reduced lethality to someone on the other side of the drywall.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

LOL. we got us a tough guy right here

I never claimed to be tough. But one thing is for certain, I wouldn't back down from you one iota.