Some gun related questions for liberals:

Nope, its easier to get guns

 

There's always the occasional, fortunate exception.

 

What's that got to do with what I said? Are you sure you didn't mean to reply to someone else?

 

Here's the proof. In China, a deranged man attacked a school -- with a knife! 23 children were injured, but no one was killed.



Those kids got to see their parents that night.

 

I do not care if you're holding a rifle or not you can still be shot just as Dead with a pistol

 

Well hop to it then.

 

The OPs questions are ridiculous and nonsensical.

The OP claims that more laws won't stop or even help this issue, yet completely supports big government creating voter ID laws for vote fraud which has only been proven to take place 0.00004% of all our elections.

And the last question is a farce. The OP supports big government forcing Women to be incubators.

 

You said; "We have murder laws not to eliminate murder, but to reduce it. Gun laws are intended to serve the same purpose."

This equates the intent and validity of the laws against murder and laws for gun control, but they are not at all equivalents. The laws against murderers actually impact the criminals while gun control laws impact law abiding citizens. The representation of gun control laws is to reduce murder, but that is a misdirection for two reasons. First- those laws mean nothing to criminals except that any reduction in the presence of guns among the law-abiding will reduce the odds of them being shot by their victims, and that encourages crime and violence rather than deterring it, and may well increase the commonality of murder. Gun control laws in no way discourage murder- but guns in the hands of people defending themselves do. De-funding the police is somewhat similar; it make crime safer. All current statistics prove it to be disastrous.

The idea that murderers won't have guns if we were to outlaw them is just as viable as our prohibition experiment and 50-year war on drugs. Both of those created huge black markets and criminal industry.
One would think we would learn from that, but we do not.

The core gun-control advocates simply fear and hate guns, when they should fear violent people, especially those with weapons-of any kind, and that can be anything. When you are passonately emotional in a belief, reason is left behind and emotion drives the perception. They fear guns- like some people fear snakes. Logic has little to do with it.

The core issue behind violence is angry people who hold society responsible for their unhappiness. They are the people who pull the triggers, or use whatever weapon they chose to murder with.
The only real common denominator in violence is the state of mind such people hold. The choice of weapons doesn't change that- but the more we label the weapon as the cause, the less we focus on the people problem- thus the violence increases, as it currently is and has been doing for the last couple years. The focus needs to get realistic.

That includes keeping the perspectives accurate- using facts rather than emotions to find solutions. Thus, the commonality you present is part of the illusion, not part of the facts.

 

I have said what my criteria is--it being a fetish weapon among school shooters.

 

Do you think any law that doesn't completely eliminate a problem should be eliminated? Why have any laws?

Every law disproportionately impacts the law abiding.

I don't think you believe in the rule of law.

 

Tell you what I will support your right to protect your family with an "assault rifle" if you are willing to agree to a law that will keep it in your home.

 

Would you be happier if the weapons chose by school shooters were a wide and varied random thing?

I question why people can't address the shooter as the cause, rather than the weapon they choose.

Year ago when airplane hijacking was happening frequently- we started searching old ladies in wheel chairs and babies in cribs. The Israeli security people were significantly more efficient than we were, and once told us why: "You look for the bomb. We look for the bomber". A gun without a violent and deranged person holding it is not a murder weapon. The deranged person without the gun- still is.

 

So we should just ban young males instead of AR-15s?

 

I question why we can't address BOTH.

 

Well, at least that's better than Feinstein.

 

Just as soon as you can prove that the people that would actually criminally use one will follow that law....

 

Well lets jump immediately to ludicrous in defense against logic, right? This is a battle not just for the lives of kids- but for common sense in adults, which is the only way they can construct working solutions.

We maintain records on criminals, and they can be accessed by law enforcement in times where threats or crimes may be high. If you make a threat against the president, you are not only on a list, but most likely will be visited. If you say the wrong thing in an airport, you wind up on a do-not-fly list.

But- when you go on social media with the handle "school shooter", nobody in authority pays attention. Or like Nick Cruz from Parkland, talked about his intentions to the point that people report the intent to shoot up a school to the sheriff and the FBI (twice) but neither paid attention. Hostile people, not just young males, are typically holding out big warning red flags long before they blow up. A person on the edge of violence goes to a psychologist- but the expressions of intent there aren't reported, because they are medical records. You don't "ban" people who are potentially radically violent- but you DO monitor them when there is reason, so you aren't taken by surprise and might be able to intervene to both prevent violence and help that person. The choice that has no chance of success is to ignore it and do nothing- while you rant about the existence of a particular weapon. More people are beaten to death by fists each year than are killed by all rifle types combined.

If we want to eliminate school shootings, we need to intervene with school shooters- in advance. If it's illegal to threaten the president- it should damn sure be illegal to threaten a school full of kids.
Behavior that indicates that intention should put you on a watch list. That should cover banning the purchase of weapons, be a crime for that person to be in possession of a weapon, of being on any school grounds, and anything else it takes to eliminate that threat including required psychiatric care.

If you "banned" AR-15s.... which would be impossible to do effectively anyway- you would still have a hostile person dedicated to taking revenge on someone, society, whatever- and that person would still bea
unmonitored shadow, seeking a way to inflict that. What if he chose a bomb?

The discussion here needs to become realistic; it needs to identify the real problem and causes as accurately as possible without regard to the public emotions, and consider the possible solutions to the problem.
The concept of banning a particular weapon makes as much sense as arresting the car instead of the drunk driver in an accident. The level of success that banning AR's would produce would be the same.

 

This particular OP struggles with reality as well. They believe that Trump actually won the election and that the libs executed a perfect conspiracy to have him lose. LOL

 

No, as that's not the purpose of laws.

To regulate (make things regular, orderly).
To provide a basis for particular punishments for committing particular crimes.

I do.

 

We need to do about 10 things that make the problem better.

One of those 10 things involves regulating access to firearms.

 

Stop using logic and common Sense here it isn't fair to the emotionally driven liberals.

In their magical universe full of bigfoots and unicorns and fairies if you simply ban guns there will be no more school shootings

 

Just as soon as you prove that taking it off your property will save a person's life.....get real.

People who support owning such weapons only see the word "ban" and apply that to any attempt to modify any gun rules. There are plenty on things that can be done that do not ban weapons or harm law abiding gun owners.

 

You do realize that to buy any firearm- you not only provide proof of your identity (they photocopy your driver's license) but you fill out a sworn affidavit/application covering a variety of qualifications from criminal history to legality of your citizenship to history mental impairment- then the ATF runs your app through national criminal databases, and you aren't allowed to buy the gun if they don't clear you? Then if you are cleared, the identity of the firearm you buy- make, model, caliber, serial number, etc- are recorded and associated with your application? And that it is a felony to enter false information on that app?

Nah. You didn't know that.

 

First of all- anyone willing to admit what is totally obvious knows that the bottom line of the anti-gun people is NO guns in the hands of citizens. The way you start down that road is to get a foot in the door, then progressively find reasons to go further. Purchasing a gun today does require an application which the ATF uses to check your criminal history and other things, and to falsify that is a felony. Then they record what you bought, including the serial number. We DO have serious gun laws in place, both for gun dealers and buyers.. Those laws ARE in violation of the second amendment, in that they clearly are an infringement; and we tolerate them only so long as they actually achieve some benefits. They are at best- a token, because you cannot make any law that criminals will voluntarily obey. Good people regulate themselves, they don't need laws. Bad people do not self-regulate; they say it's up to you to keep me from hurting you, taking from you, killing you.... And to do that, serious consequences are the only tool that works. Getting shot by the person you seek to rob or kill is precisely that- both a deterrent and a consequence, as well as an imminent one. If you remove that risk, you enable and empower the criminal.

Consider concealed carry. The thug does not have to know a person is armed for a deterrent to exist, only that it's entirely possible or probable, and he could be killed trying to commit a crime against them.
At the same time... we have a push to defund the police, to quit prosecuting criminals at lower levels because it's inconvenient, and in some places- refusing to prosecute many criminals at all levels. That comes down to the opposite- removing deterrents and consequences

For example, George Gascon, the LA County DA, has a record of refusing to prosecute about 2/3 of the cases presented by the county sheriff. The previous DA was liberal too- but turned down about 1/3.
How can a law imposing burden on only law-abiding citizens reduce the criminal violence in the first place- then add to that the reduction of the resources and will to prosecute criminal acts?
Gascon is not alone- this mentality is growing in the liberal and democrat controlled communities. Free the criminal, attack the citizen who owns weapons. It's like they asked the criminals how to improve their community, and did what they were told. All the bad guys would vote for gun control.

 

Right, so pretending that people in favor of gun control think that guns will eliminate murder is attacking a straw man.

Obviously, that leaves open whether more gun control is a good or a bad thing.

The thread opened by posing some questions to people in favor of gun control, but they were all based on straw man positions, rather than on listening to and responding to what gun control advocates are saying.