I'm sorry, I was not able to find your specific post with your gun control plan. I will keep reading your posts to see what I can find. If you could you provide a link to that post it would be helpful? As for my plan... Well I guess I don't really have just a "gun control" plan. My plan is actually a gun and people control plan. That should really be the goal, guns by themselves don't actually do anything. First, the gun part. Repeal all laws that infringe on the right of an honest, law abiding citizen to possess arms. Lets stop trying to "control" the law abiding. Lets get back to the Constitutions Second Amendment. If a person is one of the law abiding citizens he/she should be able to own any kind of guns/arms they choose. I don't care if my neighbor has an M-2 mounted on his front porch and a closet full of surplus RPG's. If he is law abiding why should I care, why would there be any problem? I am much more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident than to be murdered by my law abiding neighbor. Second, we get to the people part of my plan. It starts with controlling criminals; executing the serious offenders and keeping the others locked up. Enforce the laws created to deal with people committing crimes, enforce prison sentences and we will all be better off. A little monitoring of crazy people might be in order too and better parenting skills is a must. All this worrying about kids getting guns is crap. I grew up in a home with many firearms. They were never locked up. I never touched them because my dad told me not to. Most of my neighbors growing up had guns in their homes. I'm over 50 and I have never murdered anyone, I don't personally know anyone who has murdered anyone and I don't personally know anyone who has been murdered. It's about individual responsibility and good parenting skills. (Some better parenting skills and there wouldn't be so many fat kids; that would save a few lives!) With my idea of arms ownership being governed by the Second Amendment, as with everything it should have some limits. Just like with the First Amendment not giving a person the right to do things like shout "fire" in a crowded building or incite a riot, my plan would also have some basic limits: criminals, crazy people and children shouldn't have guns. Yeah, I'm good with that. Rich
I wasn't suggesting we couldn't do better. I was suggesting that if the problem is a U.S. problem and if the U.S. is the greatest country in the world then maybe we should solve our own problems with out looking at rest of the world for the solutions. Maybe those that have such a problem with the Constitution, guns and gun deaths. should move to one of those other countries where things are so much better than here! Just a thought. Rich
I have been seeking a description of a manditory training program from a gun control advocate since participating in this forum when it is prescribed by GCA; not a single one has had the temerity to respond. It is always mentioned as if a mantra like ‘gun control works great’. So, don’t expect an answer.
It is fact, and nothing has been found either by yourself, or any other registry advocate, to demonstrate otherwise. Nothing has been presented by anyone to show that any firearms registry was actually instrumental in solving so much as a single firearm-related crime.
The courts have long held otherwise, with the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. This is applied to individuals who are deemed so irredeemably corrupted by the justice system, that they cannot possibly be let back out into society even when they are eighty years old.
Such is factually incorrect. Each and every one of your posts on this forum, that have not been deleted by the staff on the grounds of their numerous and flagrant violations of forum rules, has been read over the course of the last two days. They have all been analyzed carefully, looking for any detail that may resemble some sort of plan being presented. And in all of the posts presented by yourself, not one of them contains anything resembling some sort of plan for dealing with firearms. The above claim is false, because the work has been done to confirm that it is indeed false.
We care, we simply do not agree to your method. For numerous reasons. You equate not doing what you want with us not giving a ****. And you wonder why you can't persuade anyone
Persuasion really isn't available, given pro-gunners are ideological driven (and typically completely reliant on false understanding of the constitution). When you do get a unicorn, the mythical beast able to use evidence in support of reducing gun control, its like watching Legend for the first time!
That's hilarious because I provided you evidence and it apparently scared you away from a thread. Persuasion is never available when you accuse someone who disagrees with you of not caring about dead people just because they won't do what you demand no matter how stompy your foot gets
What evidence was that? Happy to read it. You know the standard: author(s), date, title, journal, page numbers. Ideology comes before the foot stamp!
No, you are wrong, experience has nothing to do with ideology, it is the practical side of things, you proceed to explain gun control as a textbook exercise, unless you have been in a gunfight, how would you understand ? Or be able to explain ? There are many variables in a gunfight and personal defense scenario not covered in the simple math equations you refer to as "Empirical Evidence" and your failure to properly discuss or explain points of view is less than helpful. You quote unproven snippets such as "firearms in the home prove more danger to the people living in the home, than a criminal." You fail to take into account important factors that should be enumerated.
I refer to evidence, you refer to tabloidism. You're not even very good at ideology! Don't lie now, its unattractive. I refer directly to the evidence. Everything I say is backed up by empirical research. Empirical analysis naturally considers issues such as reverse causation and possible self-defence effects. You're not going to be the unicorn.
Irrelevant and off topic, thus demonstrating an inability to address the original point. Not all lives are redeemable, nor should such a flawed basis be operated upon.
Incorrect. No details whatsoever have been provided by yourself, and the work has been done to confirm such as being fact. No plan has ever been presented by yourself. Nothing of substance has been actually provided in any of the available posts that have been scoured over.
The belief that legal restrictions on firearms will do anything to reduce illegal access and use by those who should not have them, is nothing but ideological nonsense devoid of anything resembling the rational thought concept.
Legal restrictions have always existed. The difference is that, while previously they were used for negative aspects including racism, they now are adopted to reduce coercion on others. This is demonstrated, without question, with the diverse empirical evidence into the impact of gun control. The only question is the notion of what optimal gun control entails. You're not a unicorn!