Question for gun grabbing liberals

We also hear voices in moderation like mine and Sols. And then the 'you will pry my gun from my cold dead hands' bunch that want an ak47 for squirrel hunting.
 
PorterM said:
Why do you suggest that?
Click to expand...

from an above post of yours:
"In America, where you have severe Gun Control laws, you have higher crime rates especially violent crime.

Gun Control laws are not designed to stop crime although they are sold with that premise in mind."
 
uscitizen said:
from an above post of yours:
"In America, where you have severe Gun Control laws, you have higher crime rates especially violent crime.

Gun Control laws are not designed to stop crime although they are sold with that premise in mind."
Click to expand...

I guess I should have said "where we" or "where there are" instead of "you".

Who has ever suggested using an AK-47 for squirrel hunting? That is just another misquote that was never said by any gun owner.

In your opinion, what is the purpose of Gun Control Laws?
 
PorterM said:
I guess I should have said "where we" or "where there are" instead of "you".

Who has ever suggested using an AK-47 for squirrel hunting? That is just another misquote that was never said by any gun owner.
Click to expand...

a slightly humorous slight exageration.

I am a gun owner I have several, I also have a concealed carry permit and a badge. I do not belong to the NRA or the extreme gun controllers.

As was posted previously, crime is not necessarially linked to gun control. But we need to keep the guns out of the hands of those likely to or proven to have misused them. Like the seriously insane or violent felons.

There are more of us in the middle out here than either group of extremists want to admit, but the loudmouths get the press.
 
LOL, nope I am legal law officer. I am just authorized to use it for spcial instances relating to troubled vets though.


I didn't want to be a cop, but it works best for the vets I work with.
someone who understands their situation and won't blow things out of proportion.
 
uscitizen said:
a slightly humorous slight exageration.

I am a gun owner I have several, I also have a concealed carry permit and a badge. I do not belong to the NRA or the extreme gun controllers.

As was posted previously, crime is not necessarially linked to gun control. But we need to keep the guns out of the hands of those likely to or proven to have misused them. Like the seriously insane or violent felons.

There are more of us in the middle out here than either group of extremists want to admit, but the loudmouths get the press.
Click to expand...

Keeping guns out of the hands of people with "mental issues" and criminals is done everyday in every gun store that I know.

Pro-Gun Control is a Liberal agenda. In areas where heavy Gun Control Laws are implemented, crime is higher than in areas where citizens are not so restricted. Of course, this has a lot to do with Liberal policies that are enacted through out certain cities where crime is much higher such as Washington DC. You go into cities such as Kennasaw, GA where a law was passed in the 80s that ensured any law abiding citizen was allowed and even encouraged to own a firearm, the crime rates are significantly lower. In Florida, where deadly force is a legal action when confronting a burglar in your home and/or defending yourself and family, these crimes dropped.

The best way to keep criminals from getting guns is not to let them out of prison thereby giving them the opportunity and access to any guns. Of course, this runs in the face of Liberal agendas and policies that do nothing for lowering the crime rate.
 
PorterM said:
Keeping guns out of the hands of people with "mental issues" and criminals is done everyday in every gun store that I know.

Pro-Gun Control is a Liberal agenda. In areas where heavy Gun Control Laws are implemented, crime is higher than in areas where citizens are not so restricted. Of course, this has a lot to do with Liberal policies that are enacted through out certain cities where crime is much higher such as Washington DC. You go into cities such as Kennasaw, GA where a law was passed in the 80s that ensured any law abiding citizen was allowed and even encouraged to own a firearm, the crime rates are significantly lower. In Florida, where deadly force is a legal action when confronting a burglar in your home and/or defending yourself and family, these crimes dropped.

The best way to keep criminals from getting guns is not to let them out of prison thereby giving them the opportunity and access to any guns. Of course, this runs in the face of Liberal agendas and policies that do nothing for lowering the crime rate.
Click to expand...

Not on the mental issues, lots of holes in there in many places. That is a fact. In ky you can be baker acted in an institution for violent and delusional activites and still legally posess firearms when you get out.

The law is not legally allowed to take them unless ordered specifically by a judge which is not easy to do.
 
uscitizen said:
a slightly humorous slight exageration.

I am a gun owner I have several, I also have a concealed carry permit and a badge. I do not belong to the NRA or the extreme gun controllers.

As was posted previously, crime is not necessarially linked to gun control. But we need to keep the guns out of the hands of those likely to or proven to have misused them. Like the seriously insane or violent felons.

There are more of us in the middle out here than either group of extremists want to admit, but the loudmouths get the press.
Click to expand...
The "exaggeration" that some gun enthusiasts want an AK for squirrel hunting is far too often used seriously by anti-gun morons to be even "slightly" humorous.

As for crime "not necessarily" linked to gun control, can you show one seriously proposed piece of gun control legislation that was NOT in response to liberal demands due to gun crime rates? Some individuals may claim that is not their purpose, but when it comes to the actual passage of gun control and anti-gun legislation, it is always crime rates, or some individual high profile gun crime that is used as the justification. You go through political discussion sites and look at debates about gun control, and I'll bet 90% of them have a large faction of control advocates quoting crime statistics as their reason.

Of course, maybe some are finally getting through their skulls that crime control does NOT result from gun control. In which case it only makes sense they'll search for different justification.
 
Diuretic said:
If you need some examples of how gun control legislation can be drafted so that it picks up how to screen out those who shouldn’t be permitted to lawfully own/use a firearm I’ll be happy to point them out. But you won't like them because they will clash with your cultural values. But that's okay, it's your right to reject workable gun control laws. And as I've said, the US is awash with firearms, anyone proposing effective gun control in the US is pissing into a hurricane.

And, just for clarification, the challenge to you is to prove gun control laws actually accomplish the IFs you describe. It was not to describe the theory behind the intent of gun control. Whether the goal is "reduction of harm" or "reduce violent crime" it is easy to describe the intent of gun control laws. It is far more difficult (IMO, impossible - because gun control laws do not work) to prove the laws derived from the theory actually meet their intent.

As I responded, I can only do it intuitively. Now I have to point out that you’re begging the question as well, assuming the truth of your conclusion from your own premises. That makes the task difficult for me because you’ve produced evidence of your closed mind on this.

But getting back on point, it would be necessary, I think, to study a before and after approach to prove the efficacy of gun control laws. I can't see that happening anywhere. It's best to look at trends in jurisdictions where gun control laws are in place to see if they're effective.

In my country there is a national scheme to monitor deaths and injuries from firearms. This one of their reports.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.html

The project is here - http://www.aic.gov.au/research/projects/0002.html

The US won’t have effective gun control laws for various reasons, among them vested interests and cultural reasons. But because your country can't or won't do it, that doesn't mean the idea is invalid or ineffective. That's make a very simple mistake about the concept and it's probably the cause of your confusion about the issue.
Click to expand...
It seems to me you are the individual confused about the issue. You keep assuring that YOUR reason for defending gun control laws has nothing to do with crime levels. That's fine and dandy for you, sitting in your country. But you are confused about the issue in the United States because you refuse to accept the fact that the VAST (as in 99%+) majority of reasons given by United States politicians for advocating gun control laws are related to crime control.

As such, crime control IS part of the issue of gun control in OUR society. We DO have a serious problem with violent crime. Violence of all kinds is WAY out of control. I won't blow smoke about our problem with violent crime. And it IS that problem with violent crime that drives the majority of gun control legislation. What YOUR individual motives are makes no difference when it comes to the intent, and effectiveness, of U.S. gun control laws.

But, pursuing your idea anyway, if the idea of gun control is so valid and effective, why is it you can only point to theory and "intuition", reports and projects, as proof gun control laws do work for the purpose intended? (which is not "proof" of any kind. Even the most basic of mathematical proofs have more steps than "If A, then B".) Why is it you can propose the wording for effective laws, but cannot find any actual, proven effective laws? Could it be there is a wide gap between theory and practice?

All I have asked for is one example of a piece of gun control legislation that has brought about the result the legislation was intended. You show me a report that describes a decline in deaths from gun injuries, most of which is attributed to fewer gun-related suicide deaths. (Did all suicides go down, or just ones using guns?)

With all the gun legislation throughout the world, including those laws of Australia, surely gun control laws which can be causationally linked to their intended result can be found, can't they? Your claim that pre and post statistics are not available is hogwash. Plenty of studies have been done. But to date none are successful in linking gun control laws to their intended result. (other than through "intuition" or statistically unsound inuendo)

In every serious study done, the reality of gun control laws is closer to what 2nd Amendment advocates claim: controlling the legal ownership of guns only affects legal owners and does nothing to accomplish the (purported) purpose of the laws.
 
The problem I see with the "keep gun owners safe from injury or death" claims is that the anti-gun crowd has also made gun safety courses part of what they protest.

There have been several school shooting teams that have been disbanded by the school administrators because of pressure from anti-gun groups.

They are essentially removing the safety classes while clamoring that they want to "keep gun owners safe from injury or death".

I have taken the NRA firearm safety class. I recommend it to anyone who wants to buy a gun.

But the anti-gun crowd is not concerned about safety, they want to remove firearms from civilian hands
 
Solitary said:
The problem I see with the "keep gun owners safe from injury or death" claims is that the anti-gun crowd has also made gun safety courses part of what they protest.

There have been several school shooting teams that have been disbanded by the school administrators because of pressure from anti-gun groups.

They are essentially removing the safety classes while clamoring that they want to "keep gun owners safe from injury or death".

I have taken the NRA firearm safety class. I recommend it to anyone who wants to buy a gun.

But the anti-gun crowd is not concerned about safety, they want to remove firearms from civilian hands
Click to expand...
The anti-gun crowd, as well as many gun control advocates have painted the NRA as their enemy. They completely ignore the fact that the NRA has done more for promoting real gun safety and public safety from gun violence than any gun control or gun banning measure ever hoped to do.

Yes the NRA also takes a pretty hardline stance on the question of gun control. But perhaps that is because they recognize what the anti-gun crowd refuses to admit - gun control laws do not accomplish what they are (supposedly) designed to accomplish.

But whatever their stance on gun control, it does not make the NRA a bunch of irresponsible gun toting rednecks. But the anti-gun totalitarians sure want people to believe the NRA is filled with inbred idiots who want nothing less than the right to own nuclear weapons. Can't push a totalitarian agenda unless there is an enemy to defend against - even if that enemy is some of your own citizens.
 
PorterM said:
If Gun Control Laws are not intended as a crime preventative, then what is its purpose if not to remove guns from law abiding citizens? All we ever hear is that there are too many guns on the streets and more Gun Control Laws are needed.
Click to expand...

If there was no such thing as the 2nd Amendment and you were tasked with drafting gun control laws, how would you go about it? Would you start from the premise that all individuals are entitled to own/use/possess any firearm and then work towards reasonable restrictions? Or would you start from the premise that no private individual is permitted to own/use/possess firearms and then work towards reasonable restrictions?
 
Good Luck said:
It seems to me you are the individual confused about the issue. You keep assuring that YOUR reason for defending gun control laws has nothing to do with crime levels. That's fine and dandy for you, sitting in your country. But you are confused about the issue in the United States because you refuse to accept the fact that the VAST (as in 99%+) majority of reasons given by United States politicians for advocating gun control laws are related to crime control.

As such, crime control IS part of the issue of gun control in OUR society. We DO have a serious problem with violent crime. Violence of all kinds is WAY out of control. I won't blow smoke about our problem with violent crime. And it IS that problem with violent crime that drives the majority of gun control legislation. What YOUR individual motives are makes no difference when it comes to the intent, and effectiveness, of U.S. gun control laws.

But, pursuing your idea anyway, if the idea of gun control is so valid and effective, why is it you can only point to theory and "intuition", reports and projects, as proof gun control laws do work for the purpose intended? (which is not "proof" of any kind. Even the most basic of mathematical proofs have more steps than "If A, then B".) Why is it you can propose the wording for effective laws, but cannot find any actual, proven effective laws? Could it be there is a wide gap between theory and practice?

All I have asked for is one example of a piece of gun control legislation that has brought about the result the legislation was intended. You show me a report that describes a decline in deaths from gun injuries, most of which is attributed to fewer gun-related suicide deaths. (Did all suicides go down, or just ones using guns?)

With all the gun legislation throughout the world, including those laws of Australia, surely gun control laws which can be causationally linked to their intended result can be found, can't they? Your claim that pre and post statistics are not available is hogwash. Plenty of studies have been done. But to date none are successful in linking gun control laws to their intended result. (other than through "intuition" or statistically unsound inuendo)

In every serious study done, the reality of gun control laws is closer to what 2nd Amendment advocates claim: controlling the legal ownership of guns only affects legal owners and does nothing to accomplish the (purported) purpose of the laws.
Click to expand...

I can't help your politicians' ignorance about gun control.

I gave you evidence of a reduction of harm due to gun control laws. The purpose of gun control laws is to minimise harm. Harm is minimised. That's all she wrote.

In Australia our gun control laws are on a state and territory basis (as it is in the US, allowing for some federal influence of course). Tasmania has been the state with the most lax gun laws, at least until the so-called Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. The result of that was federal government action (and for the record my view of the gun buyback was that it was useless, populist policies that had nil effect one way or the other) and Tasmania had to tighten up it gun control laws.

You won't find me pronouncing on gun control in the US. It's too late and the gun control lobby really needs to find something it can work on that has a hope in Hell of working because for sure gun control isn't going to happen any time soon. Ordinary law-abiding Americans need access to firearms because they're so available to any criminal or nutcase that at any time they can find themselves needed to defend themselves or others against armed attack. I wouldn't want to take that comfort away from anyone living there.
 
Diuretic said:
I can't help your politicians' ignorance about gun control.

I gave you evidence of a reduction of harm due to gun control laws. The purpose of gun control laws is to minimise harm. Harm is minimised. That's all she wrote.

In Australia our gun control laws are on a state and territory basis (as it is in the US, allowing for some federal influence of course). Tasmania has been the state with the most lax gun laws, at least until the so-called Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. The result of that was federal government action (and for the record my view of the gun buyback was that it was useless, populist policies that had nil effect one way or the other) and Tasmania had to tighten up it gun control laws.

You won't find me pronouncing on gun control in the US. It's too late and the gun control lobby really needs to find something it can work on that has a hope in Hell of working because for sure gun control isn't going to happen any time soon. Ordinary law-abiding Americans need access to firearms because they're so available to any criminal or nutcase that at any time they can find themselves needed to defend themselves or others against armed attack. I wouldn't want to take that comfort away from anyone living there.
Click to expand...
What EVIDENCE have you given that gun control laws are effective for their purpose? All you have given is the statement that the purpose of your gun control laws is to minimize harm. You linked a couple studies that showed a drop in gun deaths, but not anywhere was there evidence that drop was due to gun control laws.

Not once have you presented actual evidence that a gun control law has accomplished its purpose. That is all I ask for: evidence (not blind statements of assurance) that a gun control law actually works. You cannot show it in the U.S. where the intent is crime control, you cannot show it in your own country where the intent is "minimize harm." And you cannot show it anywhere else that private ownership is allowed.

In fact, not even countries with outright bans on private ownership are the laws effective. They make ownership illegal, but that s all they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top