Why the left is wrong on gun control

First off, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, like 60% or so. That 33k number of gun deaths is a highly inflated number that does not actually represent gun violence in America. It is also worth noting that the definition of mass shooting used by anti-gun websites (4+ people killed or wounded) is not the same as the FBI definition (4+ people killed). The anti-gun groups like Bloomberg and his Everytown group like to redefine terms to increase numbers. Another example is when they said there was one school shooting every week since Sandy hook. A quick examination of the shootings they provided showed that almost none of these were the kind of shooting one would think when they heard the term "school shooting", but rather a smorgasbord of shootings that included everything from gang members firing off a round in a park near a school to police using weapons on or near school grounds. When looking at gun violence, always look for a lie that is inflating the numbers, because they often are there.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US. It is also one of the least used in gun crimes. Why then, is it continuously targeted in so called "assault weapons bans", the last of which had no real effect? What would be the point of targeting the most popular rifle when it is one of the least used weapons when it comes to gun crime? Well the answer is simple; it looks scary so it's an easy boogyman. It also allows the left to paint the right as a bunch of ridiculous, uneducated hillbillies clinging to their guns to fight the government. It isn't about saving lives, it's about sticking it to a political enemy. Unless you are on board with passing laws against your fellow Americans to needlessly restrict them (which the left shouldn't be being that they just fought for gay rights) then you should not be onboard with what the left is proposing.

Background checks though, right? We need them expanded! Well, not really. The "gun show loophole" is that in most states people selling guns at gun shows aren't required to go through background checks because they are private sales. The reality is that most of the people selling guns at gunshows are licenced firearms dealers who are indeed required to put purchasers through background checks. Even then if you look at where criminals are getting guns, it's not online (pretty sure you have to pick up your gun at a licenced firearm dealer who will then put you through a background check), and it's not gun shows. They are get their guns off the streets, through friends and family, not through anywhere that would perform a background check.

I know, "but if we expand background checks then they'll have to conduct a background check!" Well, no, they won't. Odd thing is that your average gang member isn't going to bother with the gun laws to somehow make their purchase legal because they don't care if the damn gun is legal or not and I doubt most can legally carry anyway. I constantly read about the ones around here being busted for something and almost always there's a "felon with a firearm" charge filed against them. The people who will be affected are the 99.9%+ of firearms owners who harm no one, have no criminal intent, and are normal, functional members of society.

"Oh, but isn't saving lives worth your inconvenience?" Well maybe, but no lives will be saved. Michael Bloomberg, the jackass ex mayor who banned soda in New York because he's so damn full of himself that he thinks he knows what's best for everyone and will use government force to prove it, recently had is people write a laws, bought a few elections here in Oregon, and had is law passed by a Democrat majority (who'd have thought) as an emergency measure which prevents the people of Oregon from voting on it. Under this new law my friend and I, both gun owners, would be required to go down to a gunshop and pass a background if he wanted to borrow my rifle for the day. How is that going to stop crime? It won't, because anyone planning to commit a crime isn't going to go through that garbage. It does affect every gun owner in Oregon though, the vast, vast majority of which are not criminals but every day, normal members of society.

I could keep going, easily, but I hope I've made it clear as to just why gun owners oppose the new laws and regulations the left is proposing. It's not because we want people running around shooting each other, but because we don't want unnecessary, burdensome laws passed that will have little to no effect on the shooters but will have an affect on legal owners. It shouldn't have to be said, but enforcing the laws that are already on the books would go a long way to lowering gun crime, which on average isn't little Timmy the pill head shooting up a school, but is your day to day gun violence between gangs. Hell even when someone goes stupid there are sometimes gun laws which can be applied, like the latest terrorists and the guy who conducted a straw purchase to give those ********s guns. Yes, straw purchases are already federally illegal. As for Timmy the pill head, unfortunately that comes down to a mental health issue, and it's harder to address than the criminal issue. However addressing the criminal issue alone by applying the law and giving out longer sentences for repeat offenders will have an actual effect on gun violence. Gang members can't shoot each other if they are in jail.

Oh, and finally, I shouldn't have to say this, but "Gang members" and all that is not some closet racist term, I'm literally talking about gang members. They're the ones who keep shooting at eachother. Don't believe me, read the damn news. Oh, and make sure you don't include suicides when you're talking about gun violence.

 

The President is aware with the gang members' shootings because he mentioned Chicago in his speech today.

Any law abiding citizen who owns a gun can have his mind snap in a second and fire the trigger on that gun at someone.

The President said that gun control laws are not going to save everyone but they can save some. As long as some people are spared from gun violence, I'm for strict gun control.....the stricter, the better.

 

The average person does not just snap. 99.9%+ of gun owners harm no one annually. Passing restrictions and laws against them that will have minimal impact against the lower than 0.1% that commits crimes with firearms is unnecessary and little more than passing law against a political enemy. Such political attacks should not be supported by decent people in a society.

 

Does this standard apply to all things, or just guns?

Also, specifically regarding Chicago, how have gun controls curbed violence there?

 

Too bad the government cant keep track of its guns. Fast and Furious sound familiar?

Just what was going on in Libya around 911?

How many weapons did we leave in Iraq and where are they now ?

 

You and I have had our contentions in the past, but on this topic we agree completely. "Gun Control"(as in Restriction) isn't going to stop terrorists or gang members from committing crimes against the civilian population. What it will do, is reduce the amount of guns in said civilian population and we'll start to repeat the mistakes of every country that went down this road.

On the contrary, if we had the courage to train our civilian population on how to properly and safely carry, more lives would be saved. A simple question to ask is this: If the government can possess nuclear warheads in the name of MAD, what's to stop the same principle from applying with a handgun?

I think what the Swiss have going for them is a great thing, that compliments the 2nd amendment in America. Let's move in THAT direction.

 

Gun control sure didn't help France in the Paris attacks.

 

I'm a radical leftist and I support gun ownership. Most gun crimes are a result of Capitalism, and the workers ought to be armed.

 

Here's the part I don't get. Vehicles kill more people in the United States every year than anything else, yet there is no uproar about it. The typical excuse is "weapons are only made for killing" and I have to call BS on this. If people truly cared about the DEATHs in America they would be up in arms about motor vehicle deaths.

Instead they go after something that causes a fraction of the deaths, but is only owned by a fraction of the population.

When people like you who hold life so dear that you want to banned an object start taking the real killers in this country on, I would be more inclined to listen. Woman in Stillwater Oklahoma drives through a crowd of people and nothing......

 

Obama should have as much concern for humans in the womb as he does for those in the classrooms. Right... what the hell am I thinkin....

 

#NotAllLeftists

...Ok, that was a cheap shot.

I like you.

 

That is until the government is in a position to ban and confiscate all guns. Kinda like how obama was against gay marriage until he was for it.

 

Do the people who post about and reference Chicago no matter that we are not talking about shootings in Chicago really give two fecal bomb plops about muders in Chicago? Or is this just another knee jerk reaction to slam Chicago because you know who is from there?

 

This is nothing but a bunch of excuses for the gun culture nuts.

Saying that suicides account for 60% of gun deaths?

Are you kidding?

Tell that to the families of people who have lost someone to suicide by gun. In almost all cases there's no second chance. No stomach pumping. No rushing to the hospital before they bleed out.

Just a twitch of a finger and the lights go out.

Guns make suicide that much easier and that much more deadly...like it does murder.

But keep making lame excuses....

 

Not one of these is a "lame excuse". These are all reasonable and backed counter arguments to the same bs arguments the anti-gun side keeps making. I'm honestly not trying to dismiss suicide, but I am trying to say that it should not be included when talking about banning guns because of gun violence. If you want to deal with suicide then deal with suicide. Trying to make it harder for everyone to buy guns because some people choose to kill themselves doesn't address the actual issue which is that someone wants to kill themselves. You need to address the core issue. Really the only people using suicide as a lame excuse are the anti-gun people who add suicides by firearms to the number of gun deaths while saying we need to ban "assault rifles" and other pointless gun laws.

 

Is it really so hard to believe that I'm expressing my opinions sincerely? The reason I support a state in the first place is because I believe that it's the only tool that the workers can use to free themselves. The workers need to be able to resist an undemocratic takeover of that tool.

 

Chicago is used as an example of excessive and daily gun violence caused by gang members in a town where there are strict gun laws. It shows that the gun laws are not stopping criminals from shooting each other. I would bet money that if we took out gang violence then our gun violence statistics would mirror many European nations. Your average gun owner isn't just suddenly snapping and deciding to shoot people, it's mostly a gang issue. The black market doesn't have courts to settle disputes, rather disputes are settled via intimidation and violence. Solving the gang problem would drop gun violence by quite a bit, but it's a complex issue with no easy solution.

 

There are a few arguments that the gun grabbers typically rely on which show right away that they are not interested in a debate. These are...\

* Whenever one of them uses the term "gun violence" you know they're full of it, and just trying to say anything that will make it illegal for you to own a gun. Why gun violence? Why not just violence? The reason they use that is because they want to direct the argument towards guns in particular and hope that you're too stupid to figure out that violence is violence.

Another reason they like this is because it includes all use of guns. They know it includes suicides and self defense, but they don't care. All they care about is taking your guns away, so they use a disingenuous figure.

* Another is the "why do you need..." argument which isn't an argument at all, but designed to put you on the defensive. Don't fall for it. Just walk away from them, or point out that it's not the bill of needs. It's the bill of rights, and "need" has nothing to do with it.

This is often times backed up with the "so you think your fat rednecks can defeat the U.S. military when anybody falls for that by saying they need their weapons to retain their freedom from an unjust government. Take this moment to thank them for pointing out that we need the same (or better) guns than the military has.

* "We need to do something to stop gun violence in this country!" is another one that's easily countered. Whenever you see this, ask them what they suggest, and to come up with reasons why their solution could have stopped whatever killed the bodies of dead people they are currently dancing on.

* The lamest is to allude to the first part of the second amendment which talks about a well regulated militia, while pretending that the "shall not infringe" part doesn't exist. Just point out that the right is not to be infringed, and the well regulated bit is an explanation for why the shall not be infringed part is in there.

Seriously, all of their arguments are lame. Just remember that they don't really care about well reasoned arguments. All they want is to take your guns away. If they can do that by tapping the heels of their ruby slippers, they would do that. But since they can't, they have to lie.

 

Then you ought to remember that just outside the city limits the laws are much different.

In fact just a couple gun shops in the suburbs account for a majority of the guns used in gun violence in Chicago

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to claim that "60% of gun deaths are due to suicide" isn't a lame excuse?

Yea it is...and it undercuts your case in any regard.

 

how many murders in the USA over the last 10 years?

at least 100,000

that's an insane number

 

That young lady that drove her car into a crowd of people may have been trying to commit suicide. Maybe if she'd owned a gun a lot of those people would still be alive and uninjured. But then almost all suicides by gun are men. They managed to save the life of one of my high school class mates who hung her self. It only took her three years to learn to dress herself again...

 

What is the violent crime rate in these suburbs where guns are easier to get, as compared to Chicago?

 

and???
-

Another great example of not really attempting an argument, but acting like an argument has been made. How has this undercut a case? We don't know, and we'll never know because that's the limit to your explanation.

"It undercuts your case"... with nothing coming after. Nothing, nada, zilch.

 

You have yet to post a rational argument for your position. Its almost pavlovian. You admit to being a Democrat and that seems to be the main motivation. You don't like the politics of the NRA or gun owners. your silly comment about anyone can snap-is an argument to ban cars, guns or penises for that matter

you prove the Opening Poster's arguments many times over

 

There are 300,000,000 guns in private hands in America... You can outlaw guns tomorrow and there will still be 300,000,000 guns. Gun laws do not prevent violence - they only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns.