Gun control was successful?

This is a golden opportunity for gun control advocates and supporters to present their case, They always say give up your guns and you will be safer. I assume they have manny success to draw from as there have been many thousands of gun control laws. Anything as good as they suggest must have plenty of success that can be shown as examples. I think nobody can really disagree with gun control if it works as claimed.

I don't know of these success that gun control has but would very much appreciate being told about them. I am sure that there is not one firearm owner here who would not like know that crime can be reduced and being willing to help. It is not to much to ask for some respect for those who have to sacrifice their possessions and rights that they be given some reassurance and evidence of gun control laws working as promised.

So who has this information? It must exist or else what do gun control advocates and supporters base their demands and promises on?

well its a loaded question. we make the mistake of trying to force those in the Bannerrhoid movement to prove their schemes are a success as CRIME CONTROL because that is what the BM claims those schemes are. However, we both know that most leaders of the Bannerrhoid movement don't give a damn about crime control but push their laws as a way of harassing honest gun owners. Based on that, some gun control laws are extremely successful-such as the Hughes Amendment making legal machine gun ownership impossible for anyone who isn't at least making 100K a year or so. So arguing with BM members about the success of gun control has to be done on their perspective and based on that, it is

TurtleDude said:

well its a loaded question. we make the mistake of trying to force those in the Bannerrhoid movement to prove their schemes are a success as CRIME CONTROL because that is what the BM claims those schemes are. However, we both know that most leaders of the Bannerrhoid movement don't give a damn about crime control but push their laws as a way of harassing honest gun owners. Based on that, some gun control laws are extremely successful-such as the Hughes Amendment making legal machine gun ownership impossible for anyone who isn't at least making 100K a year or so. So arguing with BM members about the success of gun control has to be done on their perspective and based on that, it is

Click to expand...

On that I agree but I was looking at this from a public/citizen point of view and not from a gun control objective point of view. If it were not successful from gun controls point of view they would be trying something different.

My only concern is citizen safety and I guess I should have mentioned that was the perspective wanted.

It really boils down to does gun control make citizens safer and when lives are on the line I should think some evidence of success is required.

So can gun control advocates or supporters provide some evidence of success of what they promise is not a loaded question. It is one every citizen should ask.

Guns are not the motivating factor when it comes to crime, murder, or suicide.

It all comes down to the mindset of the individual...........doesn't it?

We have a national mental health issue, and pockets of cultural rot within our society.

RetiredUSN said:

Guns are not the motivating factor when it comes to crime, murder, or suicide.

It all comes down to the mindset of the individual...........doesn't it?

We have a national mental health issue, and pockets of cultural rot within our society.

Click to expand...

Agreed but gun control insists we spend money on gun control to solve it. That is what is happening right now, billions are being diverted into gun control measures. My question is this a waste or can gun control give any assurances it is not? Surely that is not an unreasonable question?

Automatic weapons are heavily regulated in the US.

How many people have been injured or killed due to automatic gunfire in the US ?

Any ?

Utility Man said:

Automatic weapons are heavily regulated in the US.

How many people have been injured or killed due to automatic gunfire in the US ?

Any ?

Click to expand...

Heroin is heavily regulated in the USA---


why did the bannerrhoid politicians ban honest Americans from owning machine guns made after May 19, 1986 when there was no history of such weapons being used to commit crimes for the fifty years before the ban?

TurtleDude said:

Heroin is heavily regulated in the USA---


why did the bannerrhoid politicians ban honest Americans from owning machine guns made after May 19, 1986 when there was no history of such weapons being used to commit crimes for the fifty years before the ban?

Click to expand...

Is this evidence that gun control is not interested in the public's safety but falsely claims it is is? I cannot see what possible use to preventing crime banning such machine guns was. Did I miss something that gun control knows?

Utility Man said:

Automatic weapons are heavily regulated in the US.

How many people have been injured or killed due to automatic gunfire in the US ?

Any ?

Click to expand...

The answer is two and neither was from a citizen owned auto gun. This law must have some other agenda. Of that there can be absolutely no doubt.

Crimefree said:

Is this evidence that gun control is not interested in the public's safety but falsely claims it is is? I cannot see what possible use to preventing crime banning such machine guns was. Did I miss something that gun control knows?

Click to expand...

as you know, there was no debate, no evidence or anything else proffered by hughes in favor of the ban other than his claim that "nobody can be against banning machine guns"

the whole purpose of that amendment was the product of a bannerrhoid asshole being upset that a pro gun owner law was obviously going to pass congress and Reagan had already said he would sign it. So Hughes-late in the evening-with the help of Rangel who was the acting SOTH, pushed this nonsense into the bill even though it didn't pass a voice vote (Rangel claimed it did)

it was all about spite and sticking it to honest gun owners which is what almost all gun control is about

TurtleDude said:

as you know, there was no debate, no evidence or anything else proffered by hughes in favor of the ban other than his claim that "nobody can be against banning machine guns"

the whole purpose of that amendment was the product of a bannerrhoid asshole being upset that a pro gun owner law was obviously going to pass congress and Reagan had already said he would sign it. So Hughes-late in the evening-with the help of Rangel who was the acting SOTH, pushed this nonsense into the bill even though it didn't pass a voice vote (Rangel claimed it did)

it was all about spite and sticking it to honest gun owners which is what almost all gun control is about

Click to expand...

Well put and I am well aware of the deceit which government will go to to get such crap passed. Almost every restrictive law has some shady dealing attached. I suppose not quite as much at Woodrow Wilson Christmas present to the nation sending them back into the hands of the banks but I'm sure you know what I mean. The USA is not alone in that.

What I cannot understand is the apathy of organisations who must know that the battles that are easy to win are the most important to build confidence and support. As it stands using the courts is the most inefficient costly way that has a very low chance of success is chosen above simple public pressure to not vote or support a law. If it is a blind side that adds all the more fuel to objection.

What one must realise is that people do not just wake up one day and start objecting. First they need a reason that will directly impact something they VALUE. Then they need to know what to do so need help training and encouragement of success. Example is a great teacher.

Our salvation lies only in public acceptance of firearm ownership. There is absolutely no other way and nobody yet has managed to present a winning strategy they can show certainty of winning. What surprises me is it is not rocket science but simply using everyday example of what will work. OK I know for most it is way out the box. So far they decide without reason it cannot work.