Gun Laws in America

Options
1…1315171819

Comments

  • miller8966
    miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Collin wrote:
    I think it's important that you try to remember no one here is calling for a total ban, ok. Farfromglorified, you think it's necessary to protect yourself so what would be wrong with tougher gun laws? Instead of twisting everyone's words and drawing wrong conclusion why don't you just answer that?

    Because guns are still easy to get. No matter how tough the gun laws. Good honest people will ve hurt by it..not the bad guys.
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Which is it? Can I have a gun without being a cop or can't I?

    you can, if you pass a series of requirements. ones that are much tougher now.

    one more time. get this through your thick fucking skull. I do not want ALL guns banned.

    I want very dangerous ones banned. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?

    for guns deemed not very dangerous, I would like a series of very tough requirements. even tougher then now. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    miller8966 wrote:
    Because guns are still easy to get. No matter how tough the gun laws. Good honest people will ve hurt by it..not the bad guys.

    Is that a fact?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    I think it's important that you try to remember no one here is calling for a total ban, ok. Farfromglorified, you think it's necessary to protect yourself so what would be wrong with tougher gun laws?

    Tougher gun laws will further disarm law abiding citizens and do little to disarm criminals. Tougher gun laws will further the monopoly of force maintained by the government. Tougher gun laws will create a black market for guns wherein actually tracking a majority of guns will become impossible. Tougher gun laws will ignore the fact that people own guns for reasons other than killing.

    In short, tougher gun laws will pretend that a gun can be a criminal and do absolutely nothing to address the reasons people here actually hate guns.
    Instead of twisting everyone's words and drawing wrong conclusion why don't you just answer that?

    What else would you like to see me do?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Tougher gun laws will further disarm law abiding citizens and do little to disarm criminals.

    How?
    Tougher gun laws will further the monopoly of force maintained by the government.

    True.
    Tougher gun laws will create a black market for guns wherein actually tracking a majority of guns will become impossible.

    Prove it.
    Tougher gun laws will ignore the fact that people own guns for reasons other than killing.

    No, it won't.
    In short, tougher gun laws will pretend that a gun can be a criminal and do absolutely nothing to address the reasons people here actually hate guns.

    What's the reason people here hate guns?
    What else would you like to see me do?

    Not twisting people's words.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Tougher gun laws will further disarm law abiding citizens


    bullshit. if you are law abiding then you should be able to pass the requirements to get one. the tougher laws are designed to stop someone with a armed robbery conviction back in the summer of 89
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you can, if you pass a series of requirements. ones that are much tougher now.

    What are those requirements?
    one more time. get this through your thick fucking skull. I do not want ALL guns banned.

    I know you don't. I've said it many times. The problem is that you can't provide a standard other than "very dangerous" or "machine guns". Yet every example or analogy you provide can be accomplished with any gun. Furthermore, they all involve some massive generalizations wherein you'll be treating any gun owner as a quasi-criminal.
    I want very dangerous ones banned. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?

    for guns deemed not very dangerous, I would like a series of very tough requirements. even tougher then now. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?

    Who determines your "panel of experts" ?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes, they certainly would. But since I'd be dead, I don't really think the Supreme Court's opinion would matter much to me.



    A reasonable person, when given a reasonable choice to leave or face the logical end of their very poor assumption, would be much more likely to choose the former.

    if i see a gun; i draw. i don't stop to think "should i run?" the people here would have you think that you can be shot from 1000 yrds away; so if you can't run at 2000 feet per second; running is useless. although i've been shooting for 40 years; i didn't carry until i was held at gunpoint. i swore it would never happen again. show me your gun and i'll show you my bullet.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you can, if you pass a series of requirements. ones that are much tougher now.

    one more time. get this through your thick fucking skull. I do not want ALL guns banned.

    I want very dangerous ones banned. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?

    for guns deemed not very dangerous, I would like a series of very tough requirements. even tougher then now. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?

    per the FBI and other agencies; the most popular gun for an execution is the .22 cal. the bullet will enter the skull and bounce around making liquid out of the brain.
    also per the FBI; there has not been a crime comitted with a registered machine gun since 1934.
    so by your logic; a .22 is dangerous but a machine gun isn't. the FBI seems to be a panel of experts.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I guess I'm lucky.

    I grew up in a very tough neighborhood in Chicago. I currently live downtown chicago where crime is more common then in small town america.

    I have never had the need to carry a gun.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    How?

    Because a criminal, by definition, obviously has little care for your laws. So he or she will not be deterred by your ban or regulations and will simply obtain guns from the black market that emerges instead of his local gun store. However, the law abiding citizen that now has to jump through 50 levels of bureaucracy is now deterred from getting a gun or has to live in fear of violating the minutia of your statutes.
    Prove it.

    First, it's already estimated by the ATF that around 4 million illegal guns are already being sold on a black market in this country.

    Second, one need look no further than the drug trade to see the end of a ban on guns. The United States still manages to be the world's largest consumer of cocaine, despite the fact that it's banned.
    No, it won't.

    Really? So if someone wants to buy a fully automatic weapon simply because they enjoy using it at a firing range or similar venue, they'll be able to do so?
    What's the reason people here hate guns?

    Because they're often involved in senseless deaths. A gun ban won't stop those senseless deaths. Addressing the hate and anger people carry, however, will.
    Not twisting people's words.

    I'm not twisting anyone's words. I'm addressing their claims, often times using their very logic.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I guess I'm lucky.

    I grew up in a very tough neighborhood in Chicago. I currently live downtown chicago where crime is more common then in small town america.

    I have never had the need to carry a gun.

    Cool. That's why no one is proposing a law forcing you to do so.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    if i see a gun; i draw. i don't stop to think "should i run?" the people here would have you think that you can be shot from 1000 yrds away; so if you can't run at 2000 feet per second; running is useless. although i've been shooting for 40 years; i didn't carry until i was held at gunpoint. i swore it would never happen again. show me your gun and i'll show you my bullet.

    Fair enough cowboy.

    The thing is, my gun is never going to come out without a reasonable, elucidated request to leave and face no consequence attached to it. But I certainly acknowledge the reality that someone may see that gun and simply decide to shoot back.

    I refuse to carry a loaded gun because I simply refuse to kill a person, regardless of the circumstances. Not to say that doing so it not justified in certain rare circumstances -- it's just not for me.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:

    I refuse to carry a loaded gun because I simply refuse to kill a person, regardless of the circumstances. Not to say that doing so it not justified in certain rare circumstances -- it's just not for me.

    that gun is going to end up doing you more harm then good. you wont put bullets in so it does nothing more then scare someone away.

    well that person will get scared and shoot back and your will go click.

    if you didnt have a gun, that person might not have a reason to shoot you
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because a criminal, by definition, obviously has little care for your laws. So he or she will not be deterred by your ban or regulations and will simply obtain guns from the black market that emerges instead of his local gun store. However, the law abiding citizen that now has to jump through 50 levels of bureaucracy is now deterred from getting a gun or has to live in fear of violating the minutia of your statutes.

    Forget the word "ban."

    Ok, criminals will obtain guns from the black market. Never said the gov't shouldn't try to stop that. If tougher laws mean, 20 less people killed every year... I think it's worth it, even one.
    First, it's already estimated by the ATF that around 4 million illegal guns are already being sold on a black market in this country.

    That's bad...
    Second, one need look no further than the drug trade to see the end of a ban on guns. The United States still manages to be the world's largest consumer of cocaine, despite the fact that it's banned.

    That's not proof, is it?
    Really? So if someone wants to buy a fully automatic weapon simply because they enjoy using it at a firing range or similar venue, they'll be able to do so?

    I think they should be able to do so...
    Because they're often involved in senseless deaths. A gun ban won't stop those senseless deaths. Addressing the hate and anger people carry, however, will.

    Well, actually if people in senseless death didn't have guns, they might not have died.

    I think we also should address the hate and anger people carry.

    Notice how you used the word "ban" four times in this thread?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    that gun is going to end up doing you more harm then good.

    Perhaps. That all depends on whether or not my assumptions are correct or yours are, doesn't it?
    you wont put bullets in so it does nothing more then scare someone away.

    That's the point, yes.
    well that person will get scared and shoot back and your will go click.

    Perhaps. That all depends on whether or not my judgments are good or not, doesn't it?
    if you didnt have a gun, that person might not have a reason to shoot you

    Perhaps. The reverse it also true. It all depends on whether or not my logic is correct or not, doesn't it?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Perhaps. That all depends on whether or not my assumptions are correct or yours are, doesn't it?



    That's the point, yes.



    Perhaps. That all depends on whether or not my judgments are good or not, doesn't it?



    Perhaps. The reverse it also true. It all depends on whether or not my logic is correct or not, doesn't it?


    perhaps
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    Forget the word "ban."

    Ok. No guns are banned of any type. Got it. Keep in mind that others are proposing banning certain guns here.
    Ok, criminals will obtain guns from the black market. Never said the gov't shouldn't try to stop that. If tougher laws mean, 20 less people killed every year... I think it's worth it, even one.

    Did it ever occur to you that people are going to be killed in the government's efforts to stop the black market, that the regulations themselves will create situations wherein additional criminals, cops, and innocent bystanders are killed?
    That's not proof, is it?

    Of course it is, if you're proposing similar statutes to those on drugs. If you're not talking about banning anything, but rather just increasing regulations on guns, I'm not seeing any specifics, just words like "tougher".
    I think they should be able to do so...

    Cool. That differentiates you from others here.
    Well, actually if people in senseless death didn't have guns, they might not have died.

    Prove it.
    I think we also should address the hate and anger people carry.

    Ok.
    Notice how you used the word "ban" four times in this thread?

    Yes. Notice how it's also used in the opening post to this thread?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:

    Yes. Notice how it's also used in the opening post to this thread?


    because you selectively read. I had to explain it to you multiple times even though I clearly stated what I would like banned in the opening post.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Fair enough cowboy.

    The thing is, my gun is never going to come out without a reasonable, elucidated request to leave and face no consequence attached to it. But I certainly acknowledge the reality that someone may see that gun and simply decide to shoot back.

    I refuse to carry a loaded gun because I simply refuse to kill a person, regardless of the circumstances. Not to say that doing so it not justified in certain rare circumstances -- it's just not for me.

    the only difference between an unloaded gun and a plastic toy gun is the weight. the difference between a loaded and unloaded gun as far as the law goes is nil. if you rob a bank with an unloaded gun the punishment is the same. it's also the same if you rob a bank with a plastic gun.

Categories