Are personally owned guns a net negative for modern society?

Actually there are multiple sources for Defensive Gun Uses. Between 750k and 2mil per year depending on source.

 

That’s true! I was just pointing out that we have no way of counting all of the crimes that aren’t even attempted because of fear that the intended victim is armed with a gun.

 

Would you want people with violence in their background own a gun?

 

Okay ...

 

You can't own an automatic machine gun...so...

 

So you think the exercise of the Bill of Rights can be restricted by government requirements, Like the first amendment?

 

I'm not sure that's unconstitutional.

 

It shouldn't be but it is.

 

Sure I can. There are over 700,000 legally owned machine guns out there.

 

I can actually, its just a $200 tax stamp.

 

And you are investigated right?

 

In an example of a statute which violates multiple constitutional provisions, yes.

 

It wouldn't be anything I could control. It's not legal for them to buy one but people buy things illegally all the time.

I don't think it's right to stop other people from having them to not really do anything about the violent person.

 

Well I would oppose licensing of journalists, but I'm not sure you would.

 

I respect your choice not to own a firearm. Your opinion, on the other hand, is one of convenience. Its easy for those who have never lived in fear of their lives to believe I should be unarmed. It is extremely unlikely you will ever see the gruesome scene of a murder. Police officers do see many crime scenes and overwhelmingly support the rights of private citizens to carry a gun.

 

Nobody is beaten by rifles in conventional modern warfare. It was America's immense industrial capacity that made him realize Japan could not win if America had the stomach to fight after his Pearl Harbor gambit, which failed to destroy the most important targets, the carriers. Japan vastly underestimated America's stomach to fight, and would have lost even if every carrier was destroyed.

It seems like an irrelevant question, though. In policy, you need to know the effects of policies. The intentions barely matter. We could say that alcohol is a net negative or cocaine is a net negative, but if the policies cause more harm than good, who cares?

 

No, pass the same background check as you do to buy a gun. It takes so long to process the paperwork due to a small workforce who handles the processing.

 

A voting test is explicitly unconstitutional. We've done these cases before. Have you ever looked at some of the voting tests? They're basic literacy exams if you can read the words and know what they mean, you're going to pass that test unless you intentionally flunk it. Still unconstitutional.

 

Because you see no advantages does not mean that some farmer who hunts who doesn't have to worry much about big city gang violence but would have to wait an hour for a deputy sheriff to arrive doesn't see advantage in having them. Perhaps the problem isn't guns, but the equal protection laws. Or maybe bad stuff just happens

 

A background check is an investigation. The reason automatic weapons were banned was organized crime and the Thompson sub machine gun.

 

Except they weren't "banned" until May 16 1986 and you can still own and trade all previously existing examples, legally.
So. There's that.
And as stated: the requirement for background checks is unconstitutional. The requirement for NFA tax stamps: Unconstitutional. The ban contained in the Hughes Amendment to FOPA? Likewise unconstitutional.

 

You mean because of the actions of John Dillinger, Clyde Barrow and Machine Gun Kelly?

 

Yes....

 

John Dillinger stole his Thompsons from the police. NFA 1934 didn't block his source of Thompsons
Clyde Barrow stole his BARs from the National Guard. NFA 1934 didn't block his source of BARs.
Machine Gun Kelly never actually killed anyone.

Are you going to claim now that it was due to all of the innocent civilians killed in the St Valentine's Day Massacre?

 

Retired LEOs should be subject to the same gun laws as everyone else and not exempted from State and local gun control laws by Federal law as they currently are. Then the elites like Bloomberg would have their ex-LEO bodyguards have to comply with the same gun laws as the rest of us. Also, I don't think the left would be able to trot out LEOs for public comment in support gun laws that they themselves would be subject to when retired.