Gun Control needs to be instituted

Jesus Christ............5 posts in 5 minutes and 100's in the OP from you to me? Enough is enough.

Nonetheless, I believe in letting people know when that limit has been reached.

 

Surely, you haven't thought this through. You KNOW that the government taking away gun rights would only be temporary just how?

 

why don't you tell us what sort of guns do you want to prevent from "being gotten"

and if that doesn't decrease violent crime (it won't) what are the next type of guns you don't want to be "gotten"

you see, gun banners such as you are mainly talking about banning guns rarely used in crime and if that is the case-we have to call bullshit on your pretextual claim that your banning desires are related to public safety. Because if that was the case, then you would be trying to ban handguns which are used in the vast majority of gun related violent crime. But since that is politically DOA, you want to pick on firearms rarely used in crime. And banning them will have no impact so after the first round of bannings fail, you will have to demand banning other guns

 

unless we know what your definition of gun control is-that is complete bullshit.

 

The anti-gun echo chamber regurgitates that there is a gun problem in the US. The problem in the US is that those wishing to control the narrative blame inanimate objects such as guns instead of realistically addressing the real problem, a prevalent and growing violent criminal element. Look to how many were shot or murdered in Chicago over this weekend. Taking their guns away isn't going to address the fact that criminals will prevail because they don't pay attention to gun control laws. They laugh in the face of justice. These people, mostly career criminals, aren't giving up their guns, nor are they going to be stopped by gun control laws. Most of the crime happening in this country is coming from those who aren't even using guns that they bought legally. So I will ask the O/P, who I fear has NO real answer, how come you want to punish the law abiding gun owners?

 

Lol Have you ever heard of anything so desperate? "Taking your gun rights away is only temporary."

 

when you cut through the crap and the double speak and the faux motivations and facades, what you get is exactly what was noted in that national review article-it is cultural. Those who love big government run by urban elites, big tech and which panders to world government and nanny state control freaks, hate the culture that values independence, self reliance and most of all, they hate people who make their own safety a personal responsibility-rather than outsourcing it, and the right to use arms-to the nanny state.

 

because most of us aren't woke welfare socialists

 

Decades ago, I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I don't remember that to be a temporary obligation so I feel honor bound to oppose additional gun control laws that eviscerate the Second Amendment.

Thanks,

 

So well said and good on you for taking that forever oath.

What some of the gun control zealots don't understand is that sociological problems, not guns, are the key drivers of American violence. Do some think that suicide, domestic violence, poverty and despair and other such social depravity will just magically disappear because there will be no guns? Time to start addressing the real societal problems and decay instead of putting the cart before the damn horse.

 

Yes, there is certainly that.

I really do think there's a lot of ignorance and even willful politically driven blindness behind it, TD. People can't think beyond their own noses. Don't want to think beyond their own noses. They are plugged into the ideal that "government knows what's best for all".

 

\
We are tired of it to.

We don't have a 'gun problem', you have a problem with our civil liberty to lethal self defense, which is common among Totalitarians. You can't implement totalitarianism onto a heavily armed population with their basic rights affirmed in their national charter.

We have a handful of blue cities with a horrendous violent crime from felon gangs operating openly in their cities and racking up an unbelievable rate of homicide.

 

What's the point? Pretty soon you'll be talking only to yourself if you keep shutting out the viewpoints of others.

 

Do you even read your own posts? You specifically cited crime, not deaths.

 

HE obviously ignores me-I've been shredding his posts for the 5 months he's been here

 

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat a claim that you cannot demonstrate to be true.

 

I accept your surrender.

 

well he is right about one thing

gun control works as its proponents intend
1) it allows them to pander to low wattage Karens who want SOMETHING DONE
2) it allows them to convince the press and Big Tech that their schemes are crime control without them actually upsetting a main constituency
and 3) they can harass people who don't buy into their claims that gun control actually controls violent felons

 

WHOA! You can not effectively address a problem if you don’t address the cause of the problem. If you implement the incorrect mitigation you will have no effect (best case) or a negative unintended consequence.

Sites that are known to provide disinformation have told you access to firearms is the problem. But statistics don’t support that.

Take Illinois as an example from your link. They keep adding gun laws. They have more laws and prohibitions than most states. Yet their firearm violence rate is higher than many states with what your cite calls failures. And even worse, as laws are added, their firearm violence rate increases at a faster rate than some states with “weak” laws that aren’t adding laws.

So it’s not logical to say the solution to the problem in Illinois is more law. It simply isn’t working there. Wouldn’t it be better to determine an effective mitigation that would actually decrease firearm violence?

Now, your part about violating people’s Constitutionally protected rights and worrying about the consequences later is deeply disturbing. If you really believe saving ONE life warrants violating the nation’s collective rights I don’t know what to say to that. I’m flabbergasted.

Do you realize there are other rights we could violate that would save hundreds of thousands of lives annually? Would that be worth it to you?

It had NOT been proven gun control means less deaths. I’ve given you two nationwide examples where gun control was inversely correlated with firearm homicide. One in the US where law was followed by tripling of firearm homicides and in Australia where new law was followed by less reduction in firearm homicide than was seen in the time before the new law.

In the US you have states with very harsh gun laws with firearm violence rates double a state with very few gun laws. You have the same correlation with RACE and firearm violence that you see with law and firearm violence. Are you willing to violate race based civil rights because of this correlation?

At this point, with your above comments on rights, it’s clear our founders were very wise. The Second Amendment was written and adopted to stop people like you from violating other people’s rights. A bit ironic you wishing to violate Constitutional rights after calling Constitutionally protected right to self defense vigilantism.

SMH.

 

If you can’t address correlation and causation you will need to retract your claims that it has been proven gun control reduces firearm violence.

I know you can’t address them. That’s why I asked the question. If you attempted to address correlation and causation you would have to admit nothing has been proven you claim has been proven.

Thanks for taking the bait.

 

Ooooh... be careful!
If you effectively challenge his premise, he'll put you on ignore!!!!

 

Zorro, Zorro, Zorro, no wonder you are so misinformed. You believe anything that anyone says (without checking the validity of the data).That meme/data has been found to be a "pants of fire" lie. It has been around since 2015 and there is no facts behind it:

You can check the validity of your information here at this website: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e/united-states-third-murders-outlier-cities/

Here are some valid statistics and data that has been done by the CDC:



and here is the link to that data: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Notice how Republican led States have much higher rates (per 100,000 population) than Democrat led States. This makes your post (which had no link to the meme/data) pure BS.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!

Show me one single post where I mentioned the word crime. Not once in the entire OP. On that, I made sure to be clear as to what I was stating and throughout the OP, it has been about "gun related deaths"

 

yet most gun violence is caused by democrats or those whose groups support democrats. those numbers include suicides. red states tend to have more retirees and veterans and native Americans-all of which have higher rates of suicide than the groups that tend to cause most of the gun violence