|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 17, 2008 22:26:40 GMT -6
If we have more than sufficient restrictions and regulations on the books, please explain how guns are still falling into the hands of criminals. again with over 20,000 guns already on the books we are all still waiting for that special law you have in mind that will prevent criminals from getting guns. 20,000 guns already on the books? How can a gun be on the book? Are you referring to types? Again, when you learn how to write clearly I will address it.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 17, 2008 22:32:15 GMT -6
it stands to reason the gun caused the shooting. unbelievable I guess if the child was playing behind a parked car, out of sight, with no knowledge of how cars work, then if somebody got in and backed up it would stand to reason in your world that the car caused the accident. of course you are not interested in other comparisons because that would require an answer from you about other deadly aspects of our lives. stay on topic LT, stay on topic. after all when pregnant rhinos are allowed, only outlaws will have pregnant rhinos. like Cali said, you are entertaining oooopps, it is supposed to say "outlawd" not allowed not quite so funny when you have to explain/correct it, huh? [/quote] You said it best. Stay on topic. In my case, the child was playing with the weapon (i.e the gun) directly. In your case the child was not playing with the weapon (i.e the car). See the difference? To repeat, if a 1 year old child picks up a loaded gun and shoots himself in the foot, do you put the blame on the gun or do you blame the child, who knows nothing about guns?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 18, 2008 8:58:45 GMT -6
And you are failing to see that the bullet cannot kill with the gun. At the point the gun is fired, where is the bullet? It is inside the gun. Tell me, without the gun, how can a bullet kill? So in your backwards way of thinking, it would be okay to regulate the bullets, but not the guns? That makes about as much sense as urinating on an electric fence. you are truly amazing ;D who dresses you in the morning? the gun fires the bullet, wow who knew?, but apparantly on your planet, NOBODY fires the gun, it just picks itself up and shoots itself. therefore the gun is at fault no, regulating the bullets is no more effective than regulating the gun, in my backward way of thinking regulating, punishing, whatever the PEOPLE who load, point, and pull the triggers might be an option. can you grasp that simple concept?? didn't think so
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 18, 2008 9:02:28 GMT -6
it's been estimated that there are 80 million gun owners in the united states. less than 10,000 used guns criminally resulting in death. not a pleasant statistic but still basically a crack. sure, find a solution, let's hear it (also it's not 42,000 either) Ok. 10,000 guns used in death. That does not even account for the nonfatal shootings, or the armed robberies. Even if we do not include those two, do you think that there might be a problem if 10,000 guns that were probably originally brought legally - remember enforced by the ATF- are falling into illegal hands. Doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem with the current regulations and restrictions? like any other law criminals don't obey again still waiting for your magic law that criminals will obey, let's hear it
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 18, 2008 9:05:52 GMT -6
now you are just twisting things around. one of your first posts said YOU did NOT understand why anybody NEEDS a gun that fires 90 rounds a minute. nobody has suggested NO restrictions may be needed, simply that no "need" exists to own a legal object. have you found that other consumer product that requires the FBI's permmission to buy? logic isn't exactly your forte is it? Your use of double negatives shows improper english. Learn to write clearly and I will address your point. yeah well I guess if I couldn't answer a simple question like, what other legal consumer product requires the permission of the FBI to purchase, I would go for the "you stupid hick, you ain't got no learnin'" excuse also
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 18, 2008 9:09:24 GMT -6
again with over 20,000 guns already on the books we are all still waiting for that special law you have in mind that will prevent criminals from getting guns. 20,000 guns already on the books? How can a gun be on the book? Are you referring to types? Again, when you learn how to write clearly I will address it. you know what I meant. and no, you won't address it no matter how I phrase it, because you have no answer.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 18, 2008 9:16:33 GMT -6
unbelievable I guess if the child was playing behind a parked car, out of sight, with no knowledge of how cars work, then if somebody got in and backed up it would stand to reason in your world that the car caused the accident. of course you are not interested in other comparisons because that would require an answer from you about other deadly aspects of our lives. stay on topic LT, stay on topic. after all when pregnant rhinos are allowed, only outlaws will have pregnant rhinos. like Cali said, you are entertaining oooopps, it is supposed to say "outlawd" not allowed not quite so funny when you have to explain/correct it, huh? To repeat, if a 1 year old child picks up a loaded gun and shoots himself in the foot, do you put the blame on the gun or do you blame the child, who knows nothing about guns?[/quote] you BLAME the idiot who allowed the two to come together. the reality is guns do not accidently go off, WE accidently pull the trigger. the gun went bang because the child pulled the trigger, whether he knew what he was doing or not is irrelevant and does not change that simple fact. well since I'm going out of town for the next week, and you haven't been able to even remotely address a single issue I've had for you, I will accept your unconditional surrender. ;D Cali 1 LTDC 1 jumbo 1 Kings 0 but you have been fun take care and for godsake don't play with guns, you're not ready yet
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 18, 2008 15:09:55 GMT -6
He's surrendered to me, LTDC. He's all yers. ;D I didn't surrender anything. You should have. Dude, you've never laid a glove on me. Your arguments are not only puerile and stale, they've been used by many before you for years before you've advanced them to no avail. No problem. You can start by discussing your ignorance about a database you proposed that has in fact been in place for years.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 20:46:35 GMT -6
And you are failing to see that the bullet cannot kill with the gun. At the point the gun is fired, where is the bullet? It is inside the gun. Tell me, without the gun, how can a bullet kill? So in your backwards way of thinking, it would be okay to regulate the bullets, but not the guns? That makes about as much sense as urinating on an electric fence. you are truly amazing ;D who dresses you in the morning? the gun fires the bullet, wow who knew?, but apparantly on your planet, NOBODY fires the gun, it just picks itself up and shoots itself. therefore the gun is at fault no, regulating the bullets is no more effective than regulating the gun, in my backward way of thinking regulating, punishing, whatever the PEOPLE who load, point, and pull the triggers might be an option. can you grasp that simple concept?? didn't think so Of course you have to hold the person accountable. However, doesn't also hold that if you could keep the gun out of the criminal's hand to begin with, there can be no way for the person to load, point, and pull the trigger. My point is that guns mixed with violent criminals are leading to the shooting death of way too many innocent people. Didn't you say that you were in the gun regulation business? I guess that is why you wouldn't want any more regulations in place. Thats fine, you can continue with your twisted logic of the 'bullet killed but the gun didn't'. To me, and this might be a shock to you, but the term 'loaded gun' includes the bullets inside.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 20:50:24 GMT -6
Ok. 10,000 guns used in death. That does not even account for the nonfatal shootings, or the armed robberies. Even if we do not include those two, do you think that there might be a problem if 10,000 guns that were probably originally brought legally - remember enforced by the ATF- are falling into illegal hands. Doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem with the current regulations and restrictions? like any other law criminals don't obey again still waiting for your magic law that criminals will obey, let's hear it You did not answer the question, Again, do you think that there might be a problem if 10,000 guns that were probably originally brought legally - remember enforced by the ATF- are falling into illegal hands? Doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem with the current regulations and restrictions? Now I realize that you have been kicked in the head by a mule one too many times, but this question is either yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 20:55:26 GMT -6
Your use of double negatives shows improper english. Learn to write clearly and I will address your point. yeah well I guess if I couldn't answer a simple question like, what other legal consumer product requires the permission of the FBI to purchase, I would go for the "you stupid hick, you ain't got no learnin'" excuse also Do you have ADHD or something? We are not talking about any other legal consumer product. What exactly is your point?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 20:58:19 GMT -6
20,000 guns already on the books? How can a gun be on the book? Are you referring to types? Again, when you learn how to write clearly I will address it. you know what I meant. and no, you won't address it no matter how I phrase it, because you have no answer. I did not know what you meant. You said, "20,000 guns". In the English language, a statement like 20,000 guns means exactly that. I guess that 7th grade education is paying off for you.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 21:05:37 GMT -6
oooopps, it is supposed to say "outlawd" not allowed not quite so funny when you have to explain/correct it, huh? To repeat, if a 1 year old child picks up a loaded gun and shoots himself in the foot, do you put the blame on the gun or do you blame the child, who knows nothing about guns? you BLAME the idiot who allowed the two to come together. the reality is guns do not accidently go off, WE accidently pull the trigger. the gun went bang because the child pulled the trigger, whether he knew what he was doing or not is irrelevant and does not change that simple fact. well since I'm going out of town for the next week, and you haven't been able to even remotely address a single issue I've had for you, I will accept your unconditional surrender. ;D quote] You have not advanced a single issue that was on topic. Further, I don't recall surrendering.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 21:10:27 GMT -6
oooopps, it is supposed to say "outlawd" not allowed not quite so funny when you have to explain/correct it, huh? To repeat, if a 1 year old child picks up a loaded gun and shoots himself in the foot, do you put the blame on the gun or do you blame the child, who knows nothing about guns? you BLAME the idiot who allowed the two to come together. the reality is guns do not accidently go off, WE accidently pull the trigger. the gun went bang because the child pulled the trigger, whether he knew what he was doing or not is irrelevant and does not change that simple fact. quote] I disagree. According to your own logic, either the gun caused the accident, or the child caused the accident. Are you going to say that the child caused the accident when the child did not know anything about the gun?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 21:15:58 GMT -6
I didn't surrender anything. You should have. Dude, you've never laid a glove on me. Your arguments are not only puerile and stale, they've been used by many before you for years before you've advanced them to no avail. No problem. You can start by discussing your ignorance about a database you proposed that has in fact been in place for years. Didn't you reluctantly agree to my point that restrictions are needed? If the database has been in place for years, why is the number of shootings increasing? Could it be that the database isn't working?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 21:17:45 GMT -6
[ well since I'm going out of town for the next week, and you haven't been able to even remotely address a single issue I've had for you, I will accept your unconditional surrender. ;D We can pick this up when you get back. Have fun at your NRA rally.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 18, 2008 22:38:13 GMT -6
Didn't you reluctantly agree to my point that restrictions are needed? There was no reluctance on my part whatsoever. I simply think that the current restrictions in place are adequate. Actually, the number of reasons to deny firearms purchases has been increasing over the years. Pardon the analogy, but could you use Google to gather some ammunition before you argue further? You're embarrassing yourself. Really.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 22:55:19 GMT -6
Didn't you reluctantly agree to my point that restrictions are needed? There was no reluctance on my part whatsoever. I simply think that the current restrictions in place are adequate. quote] I disagree. If murders are going up, how are they adequate?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 18, 2008 22:58:20 GMT -6
Actually, the number of reasons to deny firearms purchases has been increasing over the years. You did not answer my question. Again, If the database has been in place for years, why is the number of shootings increasing? Could it be that the database isn't working? This is a yes or no question.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 19, 2008 20:16:42 GMT -6
Actually, the number of reasons to deny firearms purchases has been increasing over the years. You did not answer my question. Again, If the database has been in place for years, why is the number of shootings increasing? Could it be that the database isn't working? This is a yes or no question. It's not even close to a "yes" or "no" question. First of all, what evidence can you provide that the number of shootings are increasing? I believe, based on FBI statistics, that the opposite is true. Secondly, the NCIS database merely excludes those who cannot legally buy a gun from doing so legally. If someone who is legally entitled to buy a firearm subsequently uses it illegally, why is the database to blame? Not only can no one predict the future, we don't exercise prior restraint in this country.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 19, 2008 21:48:37 GMT -6
You did not answer my question. Again, If the database has been in place for years, why is the number of shootings increasing? Could it be that the database isn't working? This is a yes or no question. It's not even close to a "yes" or "no" question. First of all, what evidence can you provide that the number of shootings are increasing? I believe, based on FBI statistics, that the opposite is true. Secondly, the NCIS database merely excludes those who cannot legally buy a gun from doing so legally. If someone who is legally entitled to buy a firearm subsequently uses it illegally, why is the database to blame? Not only can no one predict the future, we don't exercise prior restraint in this country. Baltimore's homicide rate has risen dramatically over the last couple of years In 2007, Baltimore had 282 to be exact. Of the 282 kills, 233 of them were by guns. Most of those killed were African-American males. I could give you similar stats for Boston, Chicago, DC, LA, and Detroit. Do you still want to tell me that shootings are decreasing? Further, only 39.3% of the homicides have been closed. If all of the guns were brought legally- again the sales are regulated by the ATF- why are there so few closed cases? Again, does that suggest a problem with the NCIS database and the enforcement of gun restrictions that are currently in place? Thus, with our current restrictions in place, police have only been able to solve just about 40% of the homicides. Does that suggest a problem to you? Or maybe you are okay with letting 6 out of every 10 homicides go unsolved.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 19, 2008 23:11:32 GMT -6
Baltimore's homicide rate has risen dramatically over the last couple of years In 2007, Baltimore had 282 to be exact. Of the 282 kills, 233 of them were by guns. Most of those killed were African-American males. I could give you similar stats for Boston, Chicago, DC, LA, and Detroit. Do you still want to tell me that shootings are decreasing? Nationally, and overall, yes. You might want to check FBI crime stats to see. I'll let you do your own homework on that. Also, the urban areas you mention have over-representation of certain people who murder all out of proportion to their numbers by percentage of population. Check here to see what I mean: tinyurl.com/68qnjxAnd before you come back and play the race card, you might also check the collateral tale about who their victims are. Because your police forces are incompetent? No, hardly, because every person who bought a gun after that database check (which is required in every state, and some states, like California, have further onerous requirements) was legally entitled to do so. Again, we don't allow prior restraint in this country. It's a Constitutional matter, just as the right to own a gun is. Am I "OK" with it? No. Is there a solution? Yes. You might want to check this link and see what the state of Virginia did. www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/Virginia's plan was based on this program: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ExilePlease note the boldface in this quote from the article: "The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Brady Campaign were both early and vocal supporters of Project Exile, as were federal and city officials who claimed that Project Exile helped to reduce firearm-related violence in Richmond by 40 percent. [/size]The NRA lobbied the U.S. Congress to help secure $2.3 million for emulation of Exile in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden County, New Jersey where similar firearms-related violence has plagued the communities." This could work in your community, couldn't it? And these things generally begin with one dedicated person. Why couldn't it be you, instead of just huffing and puffing with stale "logic" and ideas on an Internet message board?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 24, 2008 8:51:06 GMT -6
Of course you have to hold the person accountable. However, doesn't also hold that if you could keep the gun out of the criminal's hand to begin with, there can be no way for the person to load, point, and pull the trigger. Figure out a way to do that without affecting the tens of millions of people like me who will never commit a criminal act with a gun. Perhaps you can figure that out by studying the tens of thousands of failed gun laws already on the books in the United States. I suggest that you also factor in how Vermont has maintained one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States after the Vermont Supreme Court eliminated all state gun laws in 1911. Or you could simply recognize the reality that "gun control" is a blatant fraud.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 24, 2008 8:56:26 GMT -6
If murders are going up, how are they adequate? The largest increase in murder rates in the United States began as the number and reach of gun laws increased. Then murder rates dropped as numbers of guns available in the hands of the people increased in the United States. I suggest you send a large donation to Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership or to the Second Amendment Foundation.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Aug 26, 2008 21:54:07 GMT -6
If murders are going up, how are they adequate? The largest increase in murder rates in the United States began as the number and reach of gun laws increased. Then murder rates dropped as numbers of guns available in the hands of the people increased in the United States. . Those two statements seem to contradict each other. First you say the murder rate increased because guns were more available. Then you say the murder rate decreased because of the same reason. Please provide a creditable source for your claim. Secondly, how do you explain several cities are showing a record number of shootings? Are you saying this record number of shootings is proportional to the number of guns on the street?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Aug 27, 2008 11:25:47 GMT -6
The largest increase in murder rates in the United States began as the number and reach of gun laws increased. Then murder rates dropped as numbers of guns available in the hands of the people increased in the United States. . Secondly, how do you explain several cities are showing a record number of shootings? are these cities with concealed carry options or not?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Aug 27, 2008 20:18:47 GMT -6
Secondly, how do you explain several cities are showing a record number of shootings? are these cities with concealed carry options or not? Well, lets start with Baltimore. As far as I know Baltimore does not have concealed carry options.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 29, 2008 21:42:20 GMT -6
are these cities with concealed carry options or not? Well, lets start with Baltimore. As far as I know Baltimore does not have concealed carry options. The rulers of Baltimore have been crazy against guns for years.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 29, 2008 21:47:54 GMT -6
Those two statements seem to contradict each other. First you say the murder rate increased because guns were more available. Go back and read what I wrote again. It was a manjor increase in gun LAWs that conincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crime in general. You claim about what I said is absolutely false.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Aug 30, 2008 8:06:36 GMT -6
Those two statements seem to contradict each other. First you say the murder rate increased because guns were more available. Go back and read what I wrote again. It was a manjor increase in gun LAWs that conincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crime in general. You claim about what I said is absolutely false. Again, provide some source to verify your claim. Its worth researching. I just don't see how fewer gun laws will decrease the shooting rate.
|
|