Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[rjhenn]

So I should be restricted because a few idiots use them irresponsibly?
And no, the "system" doesn't let just anyone get a gun. You can't mail
order a gun from Sears like you could years ago.
I live in rural America. Most of us here own at least one gun and it's very
rare that someone uses them irresponsibly. I won't be restricted because
idiots in the cities use them irresponsibly. It's my constitutional right to own a gun.

Cities seem to create an awful lot of idiots.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Yes. Part of living in a society means we all make some sacrifices for the greater good.



It does because of the private sales loophole. And even without that, background checks aren't stopping mentally ill people from buying guns.



Muh constitution is just a piece of paper. The government can ignore it, which it already has many times.

I'm not against gun ownership. I think we need more gun control, but we shouldn't ban all guns. However, muh constitution has nothing to do with that.

Those "sacrifices" should actually do some good. What we've actually seen are sacrifices that don't make anyone safer, but just restrict law-abiding gun owners. To actually make people safer, we need universal firearms training, just as we have universal drivers ed. It used to be that every child learned about firearms at home from an early age. In some parts of the country, they still do. Those parts of the country tend to have the fewest problems with guns.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Take your shrink shit to the neurologist.

Still nothing but ignorant garbage.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Wrong. Assault rifles were banned in 1994 in the U.S.A. I used Google.

Wrong, they were heavily restricted in 1936. They were not banned in 1994. It became illegal to own any made after 1994. There are many thousands made before then that are still legal to own, if you can jump through the necessary hoops.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

The 2nd Amendment.

Yet it's the one least respected.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

The laws in many other western cultures, dumbfuck. That’s why their incidence of gun deaths are so much lower.

Do you need a fucking picture to make it more obvious?

Your usual ignorant BS. Their incidence of gun deaths is unchanged from before they had any gun control laws, as are their homicide rates.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

You have officially inherited the title of the stupidest motherfucker on this forum

No, that's still all yours. You don't have any arguments, just bad logic wishful thinking and childish insults.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-02-08/stronger-gun-laws-linked-to-less-gun-violence-study-finds

Which is fine if all that you're interested in is gun deaths. If you look at broader measures, such as total homicide rate, the conclusion falls apart. But control freaks will argue that gun deaths are all that really matter, as if other deaths don't matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

It shows that gun control leads to less gun violence. This means that gun laws have prevented crime.

It doesn't, however, lead to less violent crime or less homicide. So, what good has it actually done?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

So a crackdown on guns will make it harder for people to get guns, yes?

Will make it harder for those who aren't a problem to get guns. It does nothing to make it harder for those who are the problem. Just like drug addicts don't have a problem getting hold of banned drugs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Well we're always going to have crime. Laws reduce the amount of things happening, they don't completely eliminate them.

Laws aimed at guns don't seem to do much at all.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Part Multi 313]

Wrong, they were heavily restricted in 1936. They were not banned in 1994. It became illegal to own any made after 1994. There are many thousands made before then that are still legal to own, if you can

hit a .300 average?

 

[rjhenn]

If you think abortion is killing, sure.

My question in this thread is really just for the people who think gun control will not prevent people from getting guns. Are you consistent enough to say a ban on abortion won't prevent abortions?

Bans on anything are just wishful thinking. If you want to prevent something, you need to look at the demand end of the problem, not the supply side.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

But people knowing that they could be arrested acts as a deterrent. If we didn't have any police, every day would be the Purge.

And knowing that their victim is likely to be armed acts as a deterrent.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[RB 60]

Yes. Part of living in a society means we all make some sacrifices for the greater good.

There are millions and millions of responsible gun owners. What sacrifices do you suggest? Which of my guns must I "sacrifice"?

It does because of the private sales loophole. And even without that, background checks aren't stopping mentally ill people from buying guns.

Again, there are millions and millions who hand down their guns to a family member along with responsible sales to known individuals.
As you said, there are sales to the "mentally ill." What restrictions are needed? And what/who determines who is mentally ill?

Muh constitution is just a piece of paper. The government can ignore it, which it already has many times.

The constitution is the law of the land. Would you like it if the police come into your home and searched it whenever they felt compelled?

I'm not against gun ownership. I think we need more gun control, but we shouldn't ban all guns. However, muh constitution has nothing to do with that.

What guns do you think should be banned? Do you think I, or millions of Americans Will just give their guns to the government? And yes, the constitution has everything to do with it.

.

 

[rjhenn]

It shows that gun control leads to less gun violence. This means that gun laws have prevented crime.

It doesn't show anything of the kind. All of those countries with less gun violence had less gun violence before they had any gun control laws. Their gun control laws had exactly zero effect.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

I’ll ask again, you stupid fuck. How many machine gun deaths have there been in the last decade?

Machine gun deaths were exceedingly rare even before they were restricted. Did those restrictions have any measurable effect on the homicide rate or on any crime rates?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Hey, blame yourself for not being able to have that discussion.
And asking for an example here is just unrealistic. It's like asking an Atheist to prove there are no gods. It's asking to prove a negative.

What we do know is that gun control reduces gun violence. So whether it's a fear of going to jail or not, laws do work.

No, we don't know that. What we do know is that gun control laws only ‘work' if they were unnecessary in the first place. Otherwise they only make things worse.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

So you think gun laws don't prevent gun violence. Do you also think banning abortion would not prevent abortion?

There were plenty of abortions before Roe v. Wade.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

The ban on machine guns prevented deaths from that source, you stupid fuck. That’s the point, idiot.

You are, by far, the stupidest cockbite on the forum.

Deaths from that source were exceedingly rare. So once again, you don't really have a point


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk