You can't make this **** up...

QuadpolarNutjob said:

let me link you to a short video by diane feinstein, senior democratic senator, and the de-facto leader of the democratic party's gun control platform.



what you think you're supporting, and what you're supporting, are two very different things.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many people would have died if that turd had been able to get her wet dreams enacted?

TurtleDude said:

I wonder how many people would have died if that turd had been able to get her wet dreams enacted?

Click to expand...

no idea, based on other successful leftist gun ban regimes, several dozen million.

Goshin said:

Your assertions are simply wrong.

Mexico has draconian gun control and far worse violent crime than the US. So do many nations.

Click to expand...

You are comparing America to third-world nations...which is like comparing apples to oranges - can't be compared. Try living in a third-world nation (I've got a house and lots of family in one) for a while and you'll understand why. Just because a third-world nation has "draconian" gun control doesn't mean it's effectively enforced. FYI, in third-world nations, cops are very poorly paid as compared to first-world nations, so bribes literally become a crucial part of their income - can't feed their families without those bribes...and YES, this really is how it works in third-world nations.

I've seen it for myself - I once paid off a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail on drug and firearm charges. Think about that - if that were done in America, would it make the news? Sure would. But in a third-world nation, it's business as usual.

Canada has far less gun control than the UK, but about the same murder rate and apparently less general violent crime.

Click to expand...

Canada and England are both first-world nations, but Canada is FAR less urban than the UK. You've got to be careful to allow for the difference in the nations you're using for your comparison. Try comparing either nation to other nations with not so nearly effective gun control.

Many recent scholarly studies have been indicating that gun control or lack thereof has frack-all to do with violent crime rates.

Click to expand...

Try quoting those sources and I'll happily shoot them down.

This marches with what I've been saying since I studied the matter of national gun ownership rates vs murder rates... ZERO correlation with gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Have you now? I grew up in Mississippi - gun ownership there is almost expected, not as much for self-defense as it is for snakes and the occasional rabid dog. So I grew up with guns, got my quals and my ribbons and my medal in my twenty-year career in the Navy - all of which means I'm not afraid of guns, I'm not afraid of using or owning guns. That said, ask yourself why it is that ALL first-world nations (including Switzerland and Israel) have FAR stricter gun-control laws than America, and every single one of them (including Switzerland and Israel) have FAR lower homicide rates than America.

High-murder nations had typically most of the following characteristics:

Corrupt or ineffective gov't/LE/courts

Click to expand...

This is very true in third-world nations

Poverty
Gangs/factions
Drug trade

Click to expand...

The third-world nation I referred to above is the Philippines. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta, and Metro Manila has about 15M people packed into the same area as about half the MS Delta...yet the homicide rate for Manila is LESS than that of Mississippi.

Think about that - there is so much grinding poverty in Manila, far more so than anywhere in Mississippi, and yet it's safer to walk the streets there. Why? Because it's doggone expensive to own a firearm there.

and/or a cultural predilection for violence.

Click to expand...

And this is wrong, too. I go back to the example of the Philippines - tick off the local strongman there and you'll be "salvaged", which means you'll be murdered. Gang fights there are rather common - my youngest son likes to tell the story of how he was caught in the middle of one...but the gang fight there was with rocks and broken bottles and fists - the guns are just too expensive for the squatters (who comprised most of the rioters) to afford.

The same is largely true for areas in America which vary in violent crime.

Click to expand...

Strongly-urbanized areas - the inner cities - DO generally have higher rates of violent crime...but try comparing the homicide rate of New York City to that of the ENTIRE state of Louisiana - the homicide rate for NYC is MUCH less than that of Louisiana. Why would that be? I mean, conservative dogma holds that NYC would be MUCH more violent than a rural state like Louisiana...but the reality, the hard numbers shows that the total homicides for NYC is about the same as Louisiana even though NYC has more than twice the number of people as Louisiana.

What's the difference? You got something right up above - poverty. Add poverty to ease of access to guns, and you WILL have a far higher homicide rate. BUT if you have "only" poverty without access to guns, you have a FAR lower homicide rat,e - like Manila, where poverty is FAR worse than Mississippi, but has a homicide rate lower than Mississippi, which itself has a significantly lower homicide rate than Louisiana.

TurtleDude said:

and stop pretending that public safety is what motivates the idiotic gun control schemes that are almost exclusively the province of far left activists

Click to expand...

You should give that insight a little more thought. You are being told what the focus of gun controls campaign is. Naturally it can be ignored and when 50 plus % of the public support gun control watch those new laws get enacted.

If firearm owners want to lose this fight all they have to do is carry on fighting gun control and ignore public opinion. I promise they will lose. I will bet every cent I have they will lose and I never bet unless I am sure of a win.

TurtleDude said:

that is not truthful

Chicago and DC prove your nonsense is in error

and stop pretending that public safety is what motivates the idiotic gun control schemes that are almost exclusively the province of far left activists

Click to expand...

Not truthful? Then show the comparisons...but when you do so, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Compare urban areas with gun control to URBAN areas without gun control. Compare rural areas with gun control to RURAL areas without gun control.

And compare states to states.

I'm looking forward to your results.

Crimefree said:

You should give that insight a little more thought. You are being told what the focus of gun controls campaign is. Naturally it can be ignored and when 50 plus % of the public support gun control watch those new laws get enacted.

If firearm owners want to lose this fight all they have to do is carry on fighting gun control and ignore public opinion. I promise they will lose. I will bet every cent I have they will lose and I never bet unless I am sure of a win.

Click to expand...

I get the Cassandra act but the sheeple will generally side with "safety". SO what we have to do is to show what really motivates the Graboids in office and how they only care about punishing honest gun owners and actually making things safer for criminals.

Glen Contrarian said:

You are comparing America to third-world nations...which is like comparing apples to oranges - can't be compared. Try living in a third-world nation (I've got a house and lots of family in one) for a while and you'll understand why. Just because a third-world nation has "draconian" gun control doesn't mean it's effectively enforced. FYI, in third-world nations, cops are very poorly paid as compared to first-world nations, so bribes literally become a crucial part of their income - can't feed their families without those bribes...and YES, this really is how it works in third-world nations.

I've seen it for myself - I once paid off a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail on drug and firearm charges. Think about that - if that were done in America, would it make the news? Sure would. But in a third-world nation, it's business as usual.



Canada and England are both first-world nations, but Canada is FAR less urban than the UK. You've got to be careful to allow for the difference in the nations you're using for your comparison. Try comparing either nation to other nations with not so nearly effective gun control.



Try quoting those sources and I'll happily shoot them down.



Have you now? I grew up in Mississippi - gun ownership there is almost expected, not as much for self-defense as it is for snakes and the occasional rabid dog. So I grew up with guns, got my quals and my ribbons and my medal in my twenty-year career in the Navy - all of which means I'm not afraid of guns, I'm not afraid of using or owning guns. That said, ask yourself why it is that ALL first-world nations (including Switzerland and Israel) have FAR stricter gun-control laws than America, and every single one of them (including Switzerland and Israel) have FAR lower homicide rates than America.


This is very true in third-world nations



The third-world nation I referred to above is the Philippines. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta, and Metro Manila has about 15M people packed into the same area as about half the MS Delta...yet the homicide rate for Manila is LESS than that of Mississippi.

Think about that - there is so much grinding poverty in Manila, far more so than anywhere in Mississippi, and yet it's safer to walk the streets there. Why? Because it's doggone expensive to own a firearm there.



And this is wrong, too. I go back to the example of the Philippines - tick off the local strongman there and you'll be "salvaged", which means you'll be murdered. Gang fights there are rather common - my youngest son likes to tell the story of how he was caught in the middle of one...but the gang fight there was with rocks and broken bottles and fists - the guns are just too expensive for the squatters (who comprised most of the rioters) to afford.



Strongly-urbanized areas - the inner cities - DO generally have higher rates of violent crime...but try comparing the homicide rate of New York City to that of the ENTIRE state of Louisiana - the homicide rate for NYC is MUCH less than that of Louisiana. Why would that be? I mean, conservative dogma holds that NYC would be MUCH more violent than a rural state like Louisiana...but the reality, the hard numbers shows that the total homicides for NYC is about the same as Louisiana even though NYC has more than twice the number of people as Louisiana.

What's the difference? You got something right up above - poverty. Add poverty to ease of access to guns, and you WILL have a far higher homicide rate. BUT if you have "only" poverty without access to guns, you have a FAR lower homicide rat,e - like Manila, where poverty is FAR worse than Mississippi, but has a homicide rate lower than Mississippi, which itself has a significantly lower homicide rate than Louisiana.

Click to expand...

Sorry bud, but squirm as you may, there's no proof that gun control makes one any safer from violent crime... the opposite in many cases, if any effect.

Even allowing for differences in reporting/recording data, the UK has much more violent crime than the US. Since they banned handguns, the murder rate has gone up and down but stayed close to the baseline: no real effect.


Gun control is not the answer.

Glen Contrarian said:

Not truthful? Then show the comparisons...but when you do so, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Compare urban areas with gun control to URBAN areas without gun control. Compare rural areas with gun control to RURAL areas without gun control.

And compare states to states.

I'm looking forward to your results.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing Glen. At best, the evidence as to whether gun control increases public safety is AMBIVALENT. Chicago, DC and other Graboid run cities are complete failures. AND THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU HAVE in favor of Graboid schemes or restrictions applied to honest gun owners is the public safety angle. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT FOR GUN RESTRICTIONS UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE WITH CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that you desired laws make us substantially safer

You cannot prove that so your argument FAILS

we on the other hand have several winning arguments that are still valid even if GUN RESTRICTIONS increase public safety


If you can actual proffer ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GUN RESTRICTIONS, I will listen to is but I doubt it

Beaudreaux said:

Says the guy responding to his own post...

Click to expand...

I only quote the most credible sources. :mrgreen:

Wait...he is claiming that he needs a gun to protect himself against people upset that he is for background checks? He thinks advocating for background checks is going to cause people to want to kill him? Even though the evil gay racist bastard that killed his daughter PASSED a background check and that citizens in Virginia already have to pass a background check to buy a firearm from a dealer? Dood doesnt sound very balanced...he probably shouldnt pass a background check.

Beaudreaux said:

Now. To use an example that is not a non sequitur - would you be okay with requiring a mental health check-up to be allowed to vote? How about being limited as to the number of elections you could participate in?

Click to expand...

There are limits on voting. You have to be registered to vote and if not you will at best be able to vote provisionally. You also have to be of voting age and in many if not most states, have state approved identification. Some thirty states have laws that prevent those that are either mentally disabled (some even fairly mildly) or mentally incompetent from voting. You also of course can only vote in the district you are a resident in thus there is a restriction on the number of elections you participate in. For example, even though you may live in one state and work and thus pay much of your taxes in another, you can only vote in the state you live in.

All of these restrictions are perfectly constitutional according to the courts. So the most fundamental right in a democracy or republic has all sorts of restrictions placed upon it.

Just saying that your comparison there was a bit flawed.

Goshin said:

Sorry bud, but squirm as you may, there's no proof that gun control makes one any safer from violent crime... the opposite in many cases, if any effect.

Even allowing for differences in reporting/recording data, the UK has much more violent crime than the US. Since they banned handguns, the murder rate has gone up and down but stayed close to the baseline: no real effect.


Gun control is not the answer.

Click to expand...

"squirm"? I want you to back up your claim that I bolded above.

Risky Thicket said:

I only quote the most credible sources. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

Here's the thing Glen. At best, the evidence as to whether gun control increases public safety is AMBIVALENT. Chicago, DC and other Graboid run cities are complete failures. AND THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU HAVE in favor of Graboid schemes or restrictions applied to honest gun owners is the public safety angle. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT FOR GUN RESTRICTIONS UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE WITH CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that you desired laws make us substantially safer

You cannot prove that so your argument FAILS

we on the other hand have several winning arguments that are still valid even if GUN RESTRICTIONS increase public safety


If you can actual proffer ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GUN RESTRICTIONS, I will listen to is but I doubt it

Click to expand...

Try comparing apples to apples. Compare URBAN areas with EFFECTIVE strong gun control to URBAN areas with NOT-SO-EFFECTIVE gun control, then get back to me.

Beaudreaux said:

Do you feel the same way regarding Voter ID? Should voters have to get a background check to get their voter ID card or just to register to vote?

Click to expand...

Last I checked felons, mentally challenged, minors and such are not likely to kill anyone with their vote, even an illegal vote doesn't kill anyone. Really stupid question you have there.

QuadpolarNutjob said:

let me link you to a short video by diane feinstein, senior democratic senator, and the de-facto leader of the democratic party's gun control platform.



what you think you're supporting, and what you're supporting, are two very different things.

Click to expand...

And I don't support that view. Feinstein isn't the face of the DNC so not relevant to my perspective or the desire for sensible gun regulation from many many gun owners and CCW carriers.

Summerwind said:

Last I checked felons, mentally challenged, minors and such are not likely to kill anyone with their vote, even an illegal vote doesn't kill anyone. Really stupid question you have there.

Click to expand...

I own a number of guns and have never killed anyone with any of them.

Glen Contrarian said:

"squirm"? I want you to back up your claim that I bolded above.

Click to expand...

It is a statistical trick by comparing two reporting systems that have entirely different criteria of what is a violent crime. However, the homicide rate in the United States is some 4 times higher than it is in Britain. It beggars belief to think that a nation with just one forth the homicide rate would have more violent crimes.

I am a firm believer that there is a constitutional right to gun ownership and have owned guns my whole life, but I think its absurd to argue that high levels of gun ownership in the United States has not meant much higher murder rates than our peer nations. Most rights have both societal benefits and costs. For example, the right to freedom of expression has the societal cost of some families having to endure people like the Fred Phelps bunch when they bury their loved ones. Similarly, the right to bear arms has the societal cost of a considerably higher murder rate than our peer nations with much lower rates of gun ownership. Hammers don't build houses, but they make it a lot easier to build one. Similarly, guns don't kill people but they make it a lost easier to do so.

That all said, as long we live in a nation that is armed to the teeth, no one will be getting my guns from me.

Glen Contrarian said:

Try comparing apples to apples. Compare URBAN areas with EFFECTIVE strong gun control to URBAN areas with NOT-SO-EFFECTIVE gun control, then get back to me.

Click to expand...

tell me Glen, since you cannot provide clear and convincing proof, and I will concede-for the sake of THIS argument, we cannot provide clear and contrary proof either, doesn't that mean you LOSE since you have NO OTHER argument in favor of gun restrictions.

I can cite the 2nd Amendment, estoppel on government and the general fact that in a free society, freedom is the default position in support of gun rights

SouthernDemocrat said:

It is a statistical trick by comparing two reporting systems that have entirely different criteria of what is a violent crime. However, the homicide rate in the United States is some 4 times higher than it is in Britain. It beggars belief to think that a nation with just one forth the homicide rate would have more violent crimes.

I am a firm believer that there is a constitutional right to gun ownership and have owned guns my whole life, but I think its absurd to argue that high levels of gun ownership in the United States has not meant much higher murder rates than our peer nations. Most rights have both societal benefits and costs. For example, the right to freedom of expression has the societal cost of some families having to endure people like the Fred Phelps bunch when they bury their loved ones. Similarly, the right to bear arms has the societal cost of a considerably higher murder rate than our peer nations with much lower rates of gun ownership. Hammers don't build houses, but they make it a lot easier to build one. Similarly, guns don't kill people but they make it a lost easier to do so.

That all said, as long we live in a nation that is armed to the teeth, no one will be getting my guns from me.

Click to expand...

I've often said that when all guns are banned, I'll be first in line to buy one...so yeah, I understand what you're saying.

That said, it's STUPID beyond words to think that easy access to firearms for everyone would somehow result in lower violent crime rates. Register all firearms, make the people responsible for what's done with their firearms, require training before ownership, and require a rigorous background check...and all of a sudden, we'll have a homicide rate as low as the rest of the first-world nations. But until then...many, many more tragedies.

TurtleDude said:

I get the Cassandra act but the sheeple will generally side with "safety". SO what we have to do is to show what really motivates the Graboids in office and how they only care about punishing honest gun owners and actually making things safer for criminals.

Click to expand...

The twits in office are not going to piss off the public if they want to be re-elected. Apparently only gun control knows that.

TurtleDude said:

tell me Glen, since you cannot provide clear and convincing proof, and I will concede-for the sake of THIS argument, we cannot provide clear and contrary proof either, doesn't that mean you LOSE since you have NO OTHER argument in favor of gun restrictions.

I can cite the 2nd Amendment, estoppel on government and the general fact that in a free society, freedom is the default position in support of gun rights

Click to expand...

In other words, you really don't want to compare URBAN areas with EFFECTIVE strong gun control to URBAN areas with NOT-SO-EFFECTIVE gun control, do you? Probably because you know what you'll find, and that you won't be able to defend it.

Crimefree said:

The twits in office are not going to piss off the public if they want to be re-elected. Apparently only gun control knows that.

Click to expand...

you have your methods, I have mine. I believe we have to show the sheeple what truly motivates the Graboids in office. The fact that sandy hook showed lots of people that the granboids are all about passing laws to pander even though those laws would have done squat to stop Lanza is one of the reasons why a national graboidgasm did not get passed

Glen Contrarian said:

In other words, you really don't want to compare URBAN areas with EFFECTIVE strong gun control to URBAN areas with NOT-SO-EFFECTIVE gun control, do you? Probably because you know what you'll find, and that you won't be able to defend it.

Click to expand...

You are deliberately ignoring a point you cannot address. I don't need to disprove your unsupported claims that gun restrictions increase public safety because I have several valid arguments that remain valid even if your claims are true

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE with clear and convincing evidence that your Restrictions make us safer-in the towns, the country, the cities and the vast wilderness areas. YOU CANNOT. at best proof that your restrictions increase public safety is ambivalent. Chicago and DC prove that gun bans are not effective in decreasing crime and may well increase it

Come on GLEN-give me an argument that your dreamed of gun restrictions that is valid even with ambivalent facts in support of gun restrictions as crime control

Goshin said:

Apparently the irony, which is about a mile thick here, goes over someone's head...





Virginia shooting victim's father says he will need to buy gun to defend himself | US news | The Guardian


I tend to give grieving parents a lot of leeway, but this is ridiculous.


Nobody wants to talk about the shooter's racial persecution complex? Whether BLM or Louis Farrakhan might have inspired his actions?

No, instead pappy is gonna campaign for gun control, while arming himself in case someone doesn't like it, because... you know all those pro-gun people are killers.


Yeah, because we have 170 million more guns than 1991, and 51% less violent crime. :roll:

Click to expand...

It sounds like your making the assumption that if someone is for gun control the are actually for abolishing guns altogether so his decision to purchase a gun somehow makes him a hypocrite. Right?