Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

most members of the BM push laws they know won't stop criminals so they can argue for more laws designed to strip lawful citizens of their rights

 

that is rich given how much disinformation and errors permeate your posts. I spent 30 years as a prosecutor-24 of them federally, and I was a firearms instructor. I bet I know more about firearms than ALL of the gun banners on this board combined. I certainly represented the USA in international shooting contests more than the lot of you and I suspect I have been in more civilian environment gun fights than all of you as well.

BM members pretend their jihad against our rights is to control criminals. Yet they support laws that only change the status for law abiding citizens which proves that their real goal is harassing honest citizens

 

In other words you don't believe in our constitutional rights. We don't buy your specious claims that liberals want criminals disarmed. Criminals don't follow laws. So criminals will have guns-look at DC and Chicago. Liberals don't believe in the second amendment as intended. The second amendment was intended to guarantee the natural right of free men to be armed-a right that pre-existed government in the minds of the founders. How can that right be premised on membership in a government controlled group?

 

Me alone, no. But, I wouldn't be alone.
Remember now, we are talking about a government gone rogue, using military power to try to usurp the will of law abiding citizens. We are not talking about overthrowing a legitimate government.

Firstly, there would be lots of service men and women who would disobey illegal orders, or defect. Secondly, there are approximately 100 million gun owners, lots of whom are patriots, ex-servicemen, LE, etc. If only half of them resisted, there would still be 50 million armed citizens. Realize also, when the first instance of military action against a citizen is made known, the populace will rise up in a way that would make the riots of late look like a ice cream party.

Like the popular meme says, " There are a hundred million gun owners in America. If we were a problem, you would know it".

Don't ever let your arrogance write a check your a$$ can't cash.

 

honest citizens should be able to buy and keep any FIREARM on the market. that means basically any firearm that civilian police departments use. That does not mean grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, claymore land mines or military grade anthrax or napalm bombs which are not arms that a civilian would normally keep and bear and which are more in the nature of ordnance or artillery rather than arms as meant by the second amendment. The laws should be designed to PUNISH criminal USE of firearms rather than ownership or possession of weapons without any malfeasance

 

a friend of mine is a US senator. He's very pro gun. He noted to me that the last thing he would want is 50 million pissed off patriots armed with deer rifles looking to terminate-with extreme prejudice-his term in office. BM members seem to think that gun owners could not beat the military in an all out war They seem to think in the case of a dictatorship, people would be fighting the military in conventional battles and the military would be carpet bombing urban areas. WRONG. it would be a war of guerrilla tactics, assassinations, and hit and run tactics. The politicians who created the civil war would be the targets of opportunity and not attacks on military strong points.

 

Why should it be a "right" and not a responsibility?

 

why should we care what a foreigner thinks about our rights? anything irresponsible or harmful one can do with a firearm will be met with criminal and or civil repercussions. That is where responsibility is dictated. But you know that so your silly comment was just that-a waste of bandwidth.

 

So, how would you organise the resistance?? When would you organise a resistance??

When is the tipping point of resistance? Who would you be resisting?

The whole guns to ensure freedom thing is a Furphy

As for your other nonsense meme about "There are a hundred million gun owners in America............."

I am not sure you do realise there is a problem

Firearm injuries cost $174 billion in the United States in 2010 and the government's firearm injury bill alone exceeded $12 billion. PIRE researcher Ted Miller estimates annual firearm injury costs average $645 per gun in America.

https://www.childrenssafetynetwork....etynetwork.org/files/TheCostofGunViolence.pdf

Those are not insignificant numbers

 

Then you should have no problem backing up that assertion that "impulse" killings make up a large portion of firearms mortality.

Please provide some data.

 

There is no correlation between murder and gun control on any level. If you believe there is, please provide something to back up that assertion.

People should be able to own whatever arms your standard infantry personnel could carry. Other than that there should be no restrictions.

What we should restrict are people, not items. Violence is a problem because violent people are not kept where they belong, and our mental health system is a joke. I'd say the drugs they use are a cure that is worse than the disease.

 

Wasn't me who brought it up.

A couple pro gun people here said that Mexico has gun control and it's less safe then here.

So argue the assertion with them.

 

And yet it's the business of the other guy who also doesn't live here on account of why? Because he's pro gun? Maybe people from Australia have a perspective to learn from seeing as they seem to be doing better with violent gun crime than we are.

 

So if all violent people who already committed a violent crime were locked up forever, that would solve future violent crime from future criminals?

I agree that mental health is a serious problem, so what to do about those people with serious problems, as well as the millions of people with less serious problems who never commit a crime and take those drugs daily. Are they not free to live their lives, use whatever medication they choose, as well as the freedom to arm themselves?

 

I am curious-who do you plan to vote for in the 2016 presidential election?

why do you think that almost every supporter of more gun restrictions votes for Democrats-or even more leftwing than that

 

Don't know. Not thrilled with anyone. Who are you going to vote for?

For obvious reasons. Of course, many Republicans are for gun control. Trump used to be before he started this act. I don't think he's going to try and abolish all gun restrictions, do you?

 

Have done so multiple times

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/n...between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/

Just this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would make it a federal crime to traffic guns (one of four gun control bills being discussed by the committee). This comes on the heels of an important new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that documents the strong connection between stricter gun control laws and lower rates of gun deaths at the state level.

The study, by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, uses a measure of state-by-state "legislative strength" of gun control policies tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, including measures to: (1) curb firearm trafficking; (2) strengthen background checks on purchasers of firearms beyond those required by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; (3) ensure child safety; (4) ban military style assault weapons; and (5) restrict guns in public places. It conducted a detailed statistical analysis (via a clustered Poisson regression) to examine the effect gun control laws on firearms fatalities.

The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect. Gun-related deaths were measured per 100,000 people for both homicides and suicides based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, controlling for other factors thought to be associated with gun deaths including age, sex, race and ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, other violence-related deaths, and firearm ownership.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...ween-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/

The authors of the report, called “America Under The Gun,” developed a list of ten indices of gun violence, ranging from gun homicide levels to firearm assaults to crime gun export rate (the number of guns sold in that state used in crimes around the country), and ranked each state from 1–50 along each index. They then took the average of each state’s ranking to determine its overall level of gun violence relative to other states. Lousiana was the highest, with an average of fifth-worst across all ten indices, while Hawaii’s 45.4 ranking was the best.

A statistical regression comparing these rankings with strength of gun law found a correlation between weak gun laws and violence levels as measured by the 10-index average. Comparing a state’s relative ranking in strength of gun law (as judged by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) to a state’s relative gun violence ranking yielded clear evidence that states with looser gun laws contributed more to the national gun violence epidemic:
]
https://thinkprogress.org/study-sta...rates-of-gun-violence-a4f6cdf6b570#.macntkgrz

There is loads more out there

But I know that will not stop the nay sayers from denying that there is in fact a strong correlation between stricter gun laws and reduction of gun related violence

 

Because every living creature in nature has a right to defend its own life to the best of it's ability.

Every creature that exists in nature knows this, except for liberals.

 

Remember - it was a right wing politician who reformed Australia's gun laws

 

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...ilability-homicide-rates-cross-national-level
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~bjc54/bystanders.html
http://jonathanstray.com/papers/FirearmAvailabilityVsHomicideRates.pdf

Your turn

Bet you cannot provide contrary research and data

- - - Updated - - -

Why does that "right" need a gun?

 

At a minimum, it would cut the murder rate in half.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf

About 10% of those that have been convicted of violent crimes have 10+ felonies on their records. Why is this allowed?

 

Other than your brain, it's the best self defense tool you can use.

Since those who seek to do you harm are also going to have a gun, I doubt throwing dishes will help.

 

My only choice is the bad hair day

every federal violation of the second amendment is the product of the Democrat party

 

2006?? I suppose beggars cannot be choosers - at least it is some kind of research

The fact that there are recidivist criminals is well known. So are you suggesting a Duterte style campaign to shoot everyone suspected of being a criminal?

 

This is the USA-not Australia. Rather irrelevant

it sucks that both parties in Australia suck so bad though