I’m not a “gun grabber” (which I gather from context is anyone you perceive as being afraid of guns and wanting them banned for the sake of banning them), so you don’t know what you’re taking about. Simple observation says the U.S. has a lot of handguns, and a lot of crime with handguns, and lots of purchases of handguns ostensibly for self-defense from crime… the issue isn’t really guns as such, but guns and fear reinforcing each other.
Words rarely said by anyone who isn’t a gun grabber.
So you think gun laws are fine now or should be changed. How would you change them?
Do you think the U.S. has too many handguns, not enough, or the right amount?
Well, you’re glabbo dimmer. Don’t bother to deny it, we all know that’s the first thing glabbo dimmers do.
Well, my goal would be to reduce violent crime, and could take several approaches, most of which have nothing to do with guns. However, it would be somewhat foolish if, facing evidence that, say, 5000 murders take place every year with a particular type of weapon, it didn’t cross my mind to consider some restrictions on that type of weapon. I gather the Assault Weapons Ban did very little to reduce crime since what were being defined as “assault weapons” (utterly useless label - as useless as “gun grabber”) were only rarely used in crimes anyway.
I think you have a lot of handguns and the corresponding problems. If your country is okay with 10,000 murders with handguns per year (as well as however many handgun suicides) then, well… sucks to be you, I guess, but you dug yourselves into that hole with steely determination.
OK, so a few your approaches would have something to do with guns. I get you.
OK, you want to grab handguns. I figured as much. All or just some?
Sure, just like we have a lot of alcohol related deaths, like 75,000 per year. If you’re okay with that yet still want to grab handguns then you’re a hypocrite.
You “get” that I’d be open to multiple approaches and not knee-jerk-reject ones that involve guns? I’ll take it as a compliment since it indicates recognition of my intelligence.
What types are most commonly used by criminals? What steps (if any) could be used to restrict access by criminals? Naturally, I’d have to balance that against the false-positive potential of noncriminals being denied access (and the consequences thereof), but I’m capable of that kind of analysis because I’m not an idiot.
Do you want to drag in other issues, like heart disease and cancer? No? Hypocrite.
The kinds of stupid accusations you’re making are so glabbo dimmer. Classic glabbo dimmer. Truly textbook glabbo dimmer.
You indicated that you were open to multiple approaches including ones that involve guns. You were quite clear.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you want to ban all or just some handguns? I imagine the most popular and the most inexpensive are the one’s most used by criminals. Are those the ones, and the only ones you want to grab? I have to think that would only cause criminals to move to the next cheapest and the next most popular. So would they be stage 2 in your grabbing? Or would you prefer to just grab all handguns from the get go? So exactly what’s you suggestion given your very capable analysis?
Sure if you want.
Good, though perhaps more accurately I’m open to discussion of multiple approaches and for me to reject one out of hand, it would have to be obviously absurd like “let’s reduce crime by asking the Martians to help”, leading me to suspect the person suggesting it to be mentally ill or willfully wasting my time.
You’re really hung up on this “grab” thing, aren’t you? Well, I guess the second-most-popular handgun with criminals is second-most-popular for a reason; being more expensive, harder to conceal, harder to use, etc. Of course, it’s possible there is no single type (or single model, since I get the impression you want to push me in that direction) that is so disproportionately used by violent criminals that depriving them of it would have any significant effect.
Your country has a lot of guns and a lot of fear and no will to recognize or deal with the considerable damage this is leading you to self-inflict.
Not really, and I don’t recognize that my declining to go off on tangents is hypocritical - I do recognize that your playing of the “hypocrite!” card is a sign of weakness.
OK, about them fewer approaches you would take that involve guns, what are they?
Of course, the thread is about gun grabbers.
Your the man capable or careful analysis. So what if any handguns do you want to ban? Or are you like me, and you wouldn’t ban any? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m just trying to get you to state your position clearly. You seem really reluctant to do so.
Heck I’m from Arizona. We have a lot more guns than fear. Maybe all the anti-gunners in our country should just relocate to yours. That sounds win-win to me.
No it’s just a sign that you’re a hypocrite, just like every other gun grabber I have talked to.
Well fuck it. I’ll just say it - I’m all for banning heart disease and cancer.
Can we get back to guns?
Like these two guys for example:
They were both nutjobs. They both had guns.
Who knows how many mass killings they may have stopped each other from committing?
Probably just one each, but as that could well be a net of twenty lives saved, I’d take that.
But when gun ownership is made a crime, only criminals will shoot each other over traffic disputes.
Well, it could be something like using a firearm to commit a felony is an automatic aggravating factor adding an extra five years to prison terms, say.
I’m not sure a ban or restriction on a particular type of firearm would matter, unless it was so broad (i.e. “no semi-auto handguns”) that it had no chance of passage whatsoever.
Weren’t you willing to make it about alcohol deaths, cancer and heart disease a recently as a few hours ago?
Am I? Actually, it’s partly a response to all the power you’ve put into the term “gun grabber”, like it was a crucifix to ward off vampires. It amuses me to mock your investment, like a vampire who picks his teeth with crucifixes.
I think the U.S. would benefit significantly from a ban on the manufacture, importation and sale of semi-auto handguns. I have no expectation they will ever realize this. There are actually several better approaches they could take to reduce violent crime, such as dropping all restrictions on abortion access and legalizing drugs (start with marijuana, go carefully from there), but these are also politically unfeasible for different reasons.
Also, you waste too much time and resources already on regulating long guns and so-called “assault weapons.”
In any case, the U.S. has a lot of a guns and has (and will continue to have) a lot of violent crime. Sucks to be them.
Oh, I see the fear every time the “Americans needs guns to protect themselves” argument comes up, which incidentally has nothing to do with well-regulated militias or state security, so I’m not clear how the 2nd Amendment applies. You’re just reinforcing your fear by trying to share it with your fellow Americans, make everybody afraid of everybody. It’s kind of sad, really, but… sucks to be you.
No, they should be working to improve their own country before coming to ours. Of course, that’s how anti-immigration arguments in general start. Anyway, having lots of guns hasn’t improved your country, or if it has, the effect must be pretty subtle or for very narrow definitions of “improve”.
By the standards you’re describing, anyone who thinks guns should be (or could be) subject to regulation of any kind is a “gun grabber”. I guess that includes me and, what, 80+% of the American population? You’re just surrounded by gun grabbers. You better reinforce your bunker a little bit more.
And your accusation of hypocrisy just repeats the weakness of your argument - you can’t fight the logic, so you try fighting the person. I’m not insulted because it’s so obviously meaningless. Typical glabbo dimmer tactic.
Sure to illustrate the point that you gun grabbers are very comfortable having dangerous things around that cost thousands upon thousands of deaths per year, just so long as those dangerous things are things that you enjoy.
See, I knew it, you are a gun grabber. If you don’t believe me you could maybe start a new thread, state your position and poll gun owners if they think you are or not. And what good do you think the banning of semi-auto handguns will do? Don’t you think people would all just start carrying revolvers?
But those are still good ideas, add to that putting all welfare recipients on birth control.
Crime sucks but from what I hear, violent crime rates are dropping as fast here as they are anywhere else, and we didn’t have to sacrifice our liberties in the same way you guys did to get that.
Yeah, “right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.” You can always spot a gun grabber by which part of the 2nd amendment they quote.
Oh, so they should stay here and make our country like yours?
I didn’t coin the term. You don’t think definition 1 and/or 2 apply to you?
It includes you and less than half red blooded Americans.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/mental-illness-gun-violence-poll-97107.html
I think you’re not insulted cause your comfortable in your hypocrisy and you didn’t want to go down that road because from any logical philosophical perspective your defenseless. Like you say, your capable of analysis, and I figure you just rather not go there.
Whereas I think he’s not insulted because the half-bright blatherings of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics who throw around epithets like “gun grabber” as though they were meaningful terms don’t have much credibility in his eyes.
YMMV
You, sir, are an idiot.
Damned few of us want to grab anyone’s guns. We want background checks for all gun purchases, with no exceptions for gun shows or private sales. We want a mandatory waiting period- 5 days would do. We want a limit on the number of guns which can be purchased in a given time period- maybe 3 each month.
That is all.
You’re right.
Next time I pull over at the Wonder Wand, I don’t want to be the only one without a gun in my hand.
This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility because:
The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as “case-control” studies) “fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. … Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized.”
As Hentor can tell you (because it is his main argument in ignoring EVERY goddam study on defensive gun use), the study’s results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees’ honesty) can negate the results.
The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).)
No please explain this to me or are you harping on some perceived contradiction in what I am saying?
So what do you think the number of defensive guns uses is? I think I’ve asked you about a dozen times and I don’t recall you ever answering me.
Probaly not. The main argument of gun grabbers is calling you names. Right now, he’s calling you a racist (among other things) but gun grabbers have resorted to calling gun nuts everything from stupid (for not agreeing with them) to baby killers (because they support the right to own something that can kill babies).
Really, so why did you mention race?
Gun grabbers (especially male gun grabbers) have a deep seated insecurity about their own sexuality so they hide it by accusing you of having a small penis.
I don’t know. There is some evidence that they DOJ doesn’t think they can win these cases, I suppose they have batting averages to protect.
We’ve disagreed on this point on almost every voter ID thread. He has the law on his side but I don’t see how any reasonable reading of the constitution and the voting rights act could permit a thinly disguised attempt to disenfranchise a block of voters that are so disproportionately black.
I agree that a handgun ban at least makes a bit more sense than banning a subset of rifles based on mostly cosmetic features.
However, a handgun ban is almost a non-starter. The polls simply don’t support a handgun ban and probably doesn’t muster a lot of support for heavier regulations either. There is a reason why the National Council to Control Handguns, and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence are now known by names that don’t mention handguns (the Brady Campaign). Stricter controls on handguns are simply not popular (and possibly unconstitutional now).
Well with moonclips (or a speedloader), reloading a revolver might take one or two more seconds than a pistol.
There are a lot of 8 chamber revolvers. Of course your basic point is not without some merit. A pistol generally carries more rounds… but I don’t think most deadly encounters involve the discharge of enough rounds that you have to change magazines.
I’m just a bad shot.
It depends on how the virus works. Walking dead zombies are different than world war Z zombies.
If we have to use a cylinder, I’d use a circuit judge 22lr. with the same capacity.
How many rounds do you think are fired in the average crime (where any rounds are fired at all). How many rounds where an innocent person gets killed.
madmonk28, do you think he even realizes what he did?
I confess to a strong desire to grab Kable’s guns, just to see the trembling lower lip before he collapses into a paroxysm of womanly sobs.
AWESOME:
Well not the part where they’re getting sued…
They didn’t “have to” sacrifice their liberty either. Noone really thinks that Australia’s violent crime rates would be noticably different if they hadn’t confiscated the guns.
There is no “we” That is just the cocktail of gun control that you favor. The only consensus you see among gun grabbers is banning all guns. Not all gun grabbers believe this and not all of them believe it as forcefully as the rest but more gun grabbers seem to believe this than anything else.
Too many of the arguments that gun grabbers use are arguments that ultimately support a total ban of guns in society.
There are plenty on this board that don’t fall into that category and might support gun bans because they haven’t thought things entirely through or don’t appreciate the good that guns do (I put Byran Ekers in this category).