Will Gun Control Become Yet Another Issue Republicans Fail?

[Danzig in the Dark]

What state?

I got my concealed carry permit in Missouri, but it is reciprocal in several other states.

A safety course and a couple of times on a range is not a hell of a lot of training. Each of the 'guns' in this picture is being carried by Secret Service agents with thousands of hours of training in how to use those guns as well as when and when not to use them. You have enough training to keep from shooting your own dick off.

[bonedog]

A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, “None of the [attackers’] rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold.”

A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the government.

[Danzig in the Dark]

It may surprise many to know that the 85 percent of the estimated 2.3 million prison inmates have had or still do some kind of serious drug abuse history. This is a massive number. About 458,000 inmates were actually under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the crime was committed or are incarcerated due to drug violations like selling or buying drugs.

It is thought that addressing these patterns of addiction and restoring such prisoners to the economy would actually bring down the number of inmates that exist in the prisons today and result in significant taxpayer savings. According to Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) only 11 percent of the nation’s prison population is receiving some kind of treatment for drug abuse.

It is also estimated that those inmates who are in prison due to drugs are more likely to be incarcerated again. These are also people who are likely to have a history of crime and have a complete network of other people involved in crime.

Drugs are involved in a wide range of crimes – violent (78 percent); property (83 percent); weapon offenses (77 percent) and parole violations (77 percent).

link

[bonedog]

It may surprise many to know that the 85 percent of the estimated 2.3 million prison inmates have had or still do some kind of serious drug abuse history. This is a massive number. About 458,000 inmates were actually under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the crime was committed or are incarcerated due to drug violations like selling or buying drugs.

It is thought that addressing these patterns of addiction and restoring such prisoners to the economy would actually bring down the number of inmates that exist in the prisons today and result in significant taxpayer savings. According to Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) only 11 percent of the nation’s prison population is receiving some kind of treatment for drug abuse.

It is also estimated that those inmates who are in prison due to drugs are more likely to be incarcerated again. These are also people who are likely to have a history of crime and have a complete network of other people involved in crime.

Drugs are involved in a wide range of crimes – violent (78 percent); property (83 percent); weapon offenses (77 percent) and parole violations (77 percent).

link

What's your point? I am talking about guns, which this thread is about, and you are talking about drugs. All the more reason for innocent law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves.

[Danzig in the Dark]

Sorry, I thought you were just posting random shit. I didn't realize it was random shit about guns. Since we are on the subject of guns, please do us a favor and expound upon Obama and the left's socialist plot to disarm everyone.

[MotleyMaiden]

So you think people should be able to buy 6000 round of ammo off the internet? Or more? You think anyone who wants to should be able to walk into gun show and buy an SKS assault rifle- no questions asked? You think anyone who wants one should have access to a hundred round magazine?

Interesting that you read that more people are killed with hammers. I work in an inner city trauma center. In all the years I have been there, I have seen hundreds of people shot. Even kids. I don't think I have ever seen someone beaten with a hammer.

[bonedog]

Sorry, I thought you were just posting random shit. I didn't realize it was random shit about guns. Since we are on the subject of guns, please do us a favor and expound upon Obama and the left's socialist plot to disarm everyone.

The takeover of any country has to be preceded by disarming the general public. In order to do that, the location of all legally acquired and legally owned guns have to be known. That requires total registration of all firearms.

After the location and number of legally acquired and legally owned guns is known, they can be confiscated. With a disarmed citizenry, the only ones with guns will be the police, the government, the military and the criminals who can do what they wish with the population. Ask the citizens of the former Soviet Union, the citizens of China, the citizens of the Cambodians under Pol-Pot, the Kosovars under the Serbs if being disarmed saved them from tyranny.

People say, "It can't happen in this day and age." "We don't need guns." "Our government would never resort to tyranny against the people." I submit it can happen in this day and age.

How do you think Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao and other dictators took control of their countries? They were leaders without character and without morals who disarmed the citizenry guaranteeing practically no opposition. The rest is history.

I submit we need guns among other things to protect ourselves from rampant crime and criminals without consciences. The police are not in your home when a criminal breaks in determined to steal your property or commit violence against you personally. It takes them time to respond, if indeed they do. Ask the people in the LA riots how the police responded to their cries for help. How many crimes were prevented because the would-be victim was armed? How many victims wished they had been armed? Criminals will attack the unarmed before attacking the armed.

I submit that resorting to tyranny is easy for a government without morals and without character. I wouldn't be so concerned if we had a leadership with moral character. Sadly, we don't.

[MotleyMaiden]

I think that whole "protecting us from tyranny" argument is the stupidest one out there. Really?? Do you honestly believe if the govt wants to suddenly take over that you are going to defeat them with a 9mm, a 45 or even an AK? What are you going to do against a tank or drones or SAM or fully armed F-22s or Stealth bombers or even nuclear warheads? You will die in about 10 seconds. Just ask David Koresh. Oh yeah, you can't because the govt ran over his ass with a tank.

[bonedog]

So you think people should be able to buy 6000 round of ammo off the internet? Or more? You think anyone who wants to should be able to walk into gun show and buy an SKS assault rifle- no questions asked? You think anyone who wants one should have access to a hundred round magazine?

Interesting that you read that more people are killed with hammers. I work in an inner city trauma center. In all the years I have been there, I have seen hundreds of people shot. Even kids. I don't think I have ever seen someone beaten with a hammer.

Yes
yes
No. Assault rifles are for the military and gangbangers. I don't believe they are in the same class as handguns for self-defense. I would never own one. It would be like using a bazooka to kill a fly.

[bonedog]

I think that whole "protecting us from tyranny" argument is the stupidest one out there. Really?? Do you honestly believe if the govt wants to suddenly take over that you are going to defeat them with a 9mm, a 45 or even an AK? What are you going to do against a tank or drones or SAM or fully armed F-22s or Stealth bombers or even nuclear warheads? You will die in about 10 seconds. Just ask David Koresh. Oh yeah, you can't because the govt ran over his ass with a tank.

I would say the David Koresh situation was an example of tyranny on the part of the government.

So you think we should all give up our guns, roll over, and spread our ass cheeks for the government? That's like telling a woman, "You know you are going to get raped. Don't fight back. Just let them have their way with you."

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[MotleyMaiden]

I think that whole "protecting us from tyranny" argument is the stupidest one out there. Really?? Do you honestly believe if the govt wants to suddenly take over that you are going to defeat them with a 9mm, a 45 or even an AK? What are you going to do against a tank or drones or SAM or fully armed F-22s or Stealth bombers or even nuclear warheads? You will die in about 10 seconds. Just ask David Koresh. Oh yeah, you can't because the govt ran over his ass with a tank.

I would say the David Koresh situation was an example of tyranny on the part of the government.

So you think we should all give up our guns, roll over, and spread our ass cheeks for the government? That's like telling a woman, "You know you are going to get raped. Don't fight back. Just let them have their way with you."

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The David Koresh "situation" as you call it was a good example of what happens if you think you are evenly matched against the govt. The paranoia of some of you people really astounds me.

Your rape analogy is a bad one as a woman usually only has one attacker, not an entire army with sophisticated weaponry. But women are told that if rape is inevitable and the attacker has a weapon and WILL kill you and submitting means you live, then submit. Do WHATEVER you have to do to live. So again, your analogy is a bad one.

I would never advocate banning hand guns. I do think we are out of control in this country and it is time to start having a dialogue about reasonable restrictions. Reasonable laws that still allow people to keep their hand guns, hunting rifles and shot guns but ban the military grade weapons, high capacity magazines, and unlimited access to ammo- especially via the internet. None of that shit should be able to be bought over thei internet. They do not let you buy narcotics over the net and really, that doesn't hurt anyone but the person with the habit. Buying thousands of rounds over the net has the potential to hurt many, many innocent people.

[Danzig in the Dark]

Sorry, I thought you were just posting random shit. I didn't realize it was random shit about guns. Since we are on the subject of guns, please do us a favor and expound upon Obama and the left's socialist plot to disarm everyone.

The takeover of any country has to be preceded by disarming the general public. In order to do that, the location of all legally acquired and legally owned guns have to be known. That requires total registration of all firearms.

After the location and number of legally acquired and legally owned guns is known, they can be confiscated. With a disarmed citizenry, the only ones with guns will be the police, the government, the military and the criminals who can do what they wish with the population. Ask the citizens of the former Soviet Union, the citizens of China, the citizens of the Cambodians under Pol-Pot, the Kosovars under the Serbs if being disarmed saved them from tyranny.

People say, "It can't happen in this day and age." "We don't need guns." "Our government would never resort to tyranny against the people." I submit it can happen in this day and age.

How do you think Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao and other dictators took control of their countries? They were leaders without character and without morals who disarmed the citizenry guaranteeing practically no opposition. The rest is history.

I submit we need guns among other things to protect ourselves from rampant crime and criminals without consciences. The police are not in your home when a criminal breaks in determined to steal your property or commit violence against you personally. It takes them time to respond, if indeed they do. Ask the people in the LA riots how the police responded to their cries for help. How many crimes were prevented because the would-be victim was armed? How many victims wished they had been armed? Criminals will attack the unarmed before attacking the armed.

I submit that resorting to tyranny is easy for a government without morals and without character. I wouldn't be so concerned if we had a leadership with moral character. Sadly, we don't.

Hitler was voted into office, Pol Pot had the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong, and Stalin and Mao were popular among their people. None of the countries you mention have had widespread gun ownership either.

Obama has been president for four years and it took 20 kids murdered before he even bothered touching any gun issue. He's talking to the NRA and might pass a couple of executive orders strengthening existing laws. That's hardly any way to mastermind an insidious plot to disarm everyone. Beside the Heller decision, there is McDonald vs. Chicago which determined that state and local governments were also limited by the 2nd amendment. Without change to the Constitution, there will be no disarmament at the federal, state or local level. I find it difficult to believe people like you actually think about the stupid shit you say.

[bonedog]

I think that whole "protecting us from tyranny" argument is the stupidest one out there. Really?? Do you honestly believe if the govt wants to suddenly take over that you are going to defeat them with a 9mm, a 45 or even an AK? What are you going to do against a tank or drones or SAM or fully armed F-22s or Stealth bombers or even nuclear warheads? You will die in about 10 seconds. Just ask David Koresh. Oh yeah, you can't because the govt ran over his ass with a tank.

I would say the David Koresh situation was an example of tyranny on the part of the government.

So you think we should all give up our guns, roll over, and spread our ass cheeks for the government? That's like telling a woman, "You know you are going to get raped. Don't fight back. Just let them have their way with you."

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The David Koresh "situation" as you call it was a good example of what happens if you think you are evenly matched against the govt. The paranoia of some of you people really astounds me.

Your rape analogy is a bad one as a woman usually only has one attacker, not an entire army with sophisticated weaponry. But women are told that if rape is inevitable and the attacker has a weapon and WILL kill you and submitting means you live, then submit. Do WHATEVER you have to do to live. So again, your analogy is a bad one.

I would never advocate banning hand guns. I do think we are out of control in this country and it is time to start having a dialogue about reasonable restrictions. Reasonable laws that still allow people to keep their hand guns, hunting rifles and shot guns but ban the military grade weapons, high capacity magazines, and unlimited access to ammo- especially via the internet. None of that shit should be able to be bought over thei internet. They do not let you buy narcotics over the net and really, that doesn't hurt anyone but the person with the habit. Buying thousands of rounds over the net has the potential to hurt many, many innocent people.

You and I agree on your last paragraph. Earlier I was under the impression that you want to ban all guns, like Danzig who really is "in the Dark."

[Danzig in the Dark]

You and I agree on your last paragraph. Earlier I was under the impression that you want to ban all guns, like Danzig who really is "in the Dark."

Do I?

[bonedog]

England warns America: Don't let them take your guns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ZvwPmjJu4

[bonedog]

Gun control explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY

[KneelandBobDylan]

So you think people should be able to buy 6000 round of ammo off the internet? Or more? You think anyone who wants to should be able to walk into gun show and buy an SKS assault rifle- no questions asked? You think anyone who wants one should have access to a hundred round magazine?

Interesting that you read that more people are killed with hammers. I work in an inner city trauma center. In all the years I have been there, I have seen hundreds of people shot. Even kids. I don't think I have ever seen someone beaten with a hammer.

Yes
yes
No. Assault rifles are for the military and gangbangers. I don't believe they are in the same class as handguns for self-defense. I would never own one. It would be like using a bazooka to kill a fly.

I don't understand why your vag is so sandy then, no one has ever proposed taking away hand guns. What I personally would like to see done away with are assault weapons, and oversized magazines, but I don't even think that will happen.

[bonedog]

So you think people should be able to buy 6000 round of ammo off the internet? Or more? You think anyone who wants to should be able to walk into gun show and buy an SKS assault rifle- no questions asked? You think anyone who wants one should have access to a hundred round magazine?

Interesting that you read that more people are killed with hammers. I work in an inner city trauma center. In all the years I have been there, I have seen hundreds of people shot. Even kids. I don't think I have ever seen someone beaten with a hammer.

Yes
yes
No. Assault rifles are for the military and gangbangers. I don't believe they are in the same class as handguns for self-defense. I would never own one. It would be like using a bazooka to kill a fly.

I don't understand why your vag is so sandy then, no one has ever proposed taking away hand guns. What I personally would like to see done away with are assault weapons, and oversized magazines, but I don't even think that will happen.

Kneel - you said earlier that I did not have a right to own a firearm unless I was a member of a "well-regulated" militia. That gave me the impression that you wanted to ban hand guns.

[KneelandBobDylan]

Kneel - you said earlier that I did not have a right to own a firearm unless I was a member of a "well-regulated" militia. That gave me the impression that you wanted to ban hand guns.

I said no such thing, I just asked if you were a member of a "Well regulated militia." You do understand why I used that exact term right? Because I've actually read what the "Bill of Rights" says. I didn't try to interpret it to fit my ideological point of view, hence my reply when you brought up how the Supreme court ruled about it.

[RATTdrools]

You and I agree on your last paragraph. Earlier I was under the impression that you want to ban all guns, like Danzig who really is "in the Dark."

Do I?

To you guys and MotleyMaiden, what's wrong with banning guns? England and Australia did it and now have less than 50 gun deaths a year while we have 12,000+ and 30,000+ with suicides! You do NOT need a gun for day to day life!

I admit it's a steep hill to climb and we could start smaller but stats from the world over show a gun free society is a SAFER society!

MotleyMaiden, you a nurse or what?

[Danzig in the Dark]

You and I agree on your last paragraph. Earlier I was under the impression that you want to ban all guns, like Danzig who really is "in the Dark."

Do I?

To you guys and MotleyMaiden, what's wrong with banning guns? England and Australia did it and now have less than 50 gun deaths a year while we have 12,000+ and 30,000+ with suicides! You do NOT need a gun for day to day life!

England and Australia haven't banned guns. Japan has a ridiculously high suicide rate and they don't have many guns at all. I presume you are OK with violence, murder and suicide as long as guns are not involved.

I admit it's a steep hill to climb and we could start smaller but stats from the world over show a gun free society is a SAFER society!

Show us these statistics. Did England and Australia have murder rates comparable to the US before they changed their gun laws? It is up to you to provide some correlation to back up your claims.

RattRules, you are a simplistic idiot and jay city roller is the poster child for the reason many reasonable people have told the NRA to fuck off.

[MotleyMaiden]

You and I agree on your last paragraph. Earlier I was under the impression that you want to ban all guns, like Danzig who really is "in the Dark."

Do I?

To you guys and MotleyMaiden, what's wrong with banning guns? England and Australia did it and now have less than 50 gun deaths a year while we have 12,000+ and 30,000+ with suicides! You do NOT need a gun for day to day life!

I admit it's a steep hill to climb and we could start smaller but stats from the world over show a gun free society is a SAFER society!

MotleyMaiden, you a nurse or what?

Yes, I am a nurse. I have been one for 21 years this year.

The problem with banning guns is our 2nd amendment does allow for the right to bear arms. I have no problem with people owning handguns. I own handguns. Expecting to ban ALL guns in this country is not reasonable or feasible. I am, however, for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Closing the "gun show loop hole", banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines, don't allow people to buy this shit off the internet. That is just a start.

[RATTdrools]

Do I?

To you guys and MotleyMaiden, what's wrong with banning guns? England and Australia did it and now have less than 50 gun deaths a year while we have 12,000+ and 30,000+ with suicides! You do NOT need a gun for day to day life!

England and Australia haven't banned guns. Japan has a ridiculously high suicide rate and they don't have many guns at all. I presume you are OK with violence, murder and suicide as long as guns are not involved.

I admit it's a steep hill to climb and we could start smaller but stats from the world over show a gun free society is a SAFER society!

Show us these statistics. Did England and Australia have murder rates comparable to the US before they changed their gun laws? It is up to you to provide some correlation to back up your claims.
RattRules, you are a simplistic idiot and jay city roller is the poster child for the reason many reasonable people have told the NRA to fuck off.

Hey MORON every Euro nation has fewer guns and fewer gun deaths than America! In addition most Euro and Asian nations have a lower homicide rate in addition to a lower gun death rate!

You can see it all over the world! Nations with fewer guns per capita are safer societies!

[RATTdrools]

Do I?

To you guys and MotleyMaiden, what's wrong with banning guns? England and Australia did it and now have less than 50 gun deaths a year while we have 12,000+ and 30,000+ with suicides! You do NOT need a gun for day to day life!

I admit it's a steep hill to climb and we could start smaller but stats from the world over show a gun free society is a SAFER society!

MotleyMaiden, you a nurse or what?

Yes, I am a nurse. I have been one for 21 years this year.

The problem with banning guns is our 2nd amendment does allow for the right to bear arms. I have no problem with people owning handguns. I own handguns. Expecting to ban ALL guns in this country is not reasonable or feasible. I am, however, for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Closing the "gun show loop hole", banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines, don't allow people to buy this shit off the internet. That is just a start.

They were just discussing the 2nd Amendment on the news and it seems Jefferson said it should be reviewed every 20 years to see if it still applies.

You can CLEARLY see it's a much different world now than in 1776! We are no longer under the threat of the redcoats or Native Americans! We're not dealing with single shot muskets that take forever to load! If the FF were around they would most definitely say it's open to be amended or modified!

I know what the SC said but that's open to interpretation. A later court could see it differently. Why not actually let guns only in the hands of those in a "well regulated militia"? I.E. people who are trained and authorized like police and military!

[Nevoeiro]

Crime stats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWNOiw_XIV8

[gtrjay]

Reagan was a fucking liberal faggot.

LOL!!!!!!!

How dare you say that about the messiah of the GOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Danzig in the Dark]

Hey MORON every Euro nation has fewer guns and fewer gun deaths than America! In addition most Euro and Asian nations have a lower homicide rate in addition to a lower gun death rate!

You can see it all over the world! Nations with fewer guns per capita are safer societies!

Is it because of the guns or societal factors? Do you even know? For example, England has a lower rate of murder by strangulation than the US. Is it because they banned hands or could it be societal factors? You have seized upon a simplistic answer to a complicated issue just as Wayne LaPierre has.

[bonedog]

Do you people really think that banning guns is going to keep them off the streets? Tell me, how is that working out for weed, crack, cocaine and heroin?

[RATTdrools]

Do you people really think that banning guns is going to keep them off the streets? Tell me, how is that working out for weed, crack, cocaine and heroin?

It is a FACT that fewer guns per capita in society lead to a society with FEWER gun deaths! The USA has the highest rate of per capita gun ownership on earth and therefore the highest gun death rate in the western world!

Japan, England, and Australia virtually ban private gun ownership and they have the lowest gun death rates! It's not rocket science! 300 million guns is far too many!

[bonedog]

Do you people really think that banning guns is going to keep them off the streets? Tell me, how is that working out for weed, crack, cocaine and heroin?

It is a FACT that fewer guns per capita in society lead to a society with FEWER gun deaths! The USA has the highest rate of per capita gun ownership on earth and therefore the highest gun death rate in the western world!

Japan, England, and Australia virtually ban private gun ownership and they have the lowest gun death rates! It's not rocket science! 300 million guns is far too many!

You didn't answer my question. That is because there is no way to logically dispute my point.

By the way, violent crime is on the decrease in every U.S. state that has adopted concealed carry laws. Explain that one away.