Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the greatest benefits from having all citizens able to own and carry guns, is deterrence.
Even if the laws conformed to the 2nd amendment (anyone can own and carry a gun if he wants), most people still wouldn't bother carrying. But a few would. And a criminal contemplating robbing or assaulting someone with a gun, would know there's likely someone in the crowd who has a gun and knows how to use it. He has no idea which direction a bullet might come from, but it's likely that one (or more) would.
And so he might decide not to commit his crime after all.
How many crimes would never get done in the first place, if everyone were allowed to carry, even if most didn't bother?
Study after study has shown that even with the laws restricting law-abiding people from carrying, there are still millions of incidents where a crime was stopped by the "victim" producing a gun, or even mentioning that he had one. There are no statistics for how many criminals decided NOT to commit a crime because the victim or a bystander might have a gun, but they are likely sizeable.
The people still demanding "gun control" laws now this, they have been told repeatedly over many years, that the laws they demand, never work as advertised, and that the people remain the best defense against criminals intending them harm. And yet they still demand such laws, despite knowing they will only restrict the law-abiding.
Why, exactly, do these people demand laws that only restrict the people they claim to want to "help"?
This is true. But again you are assuming people have access to those guns on the black market. I haven't a clue how to go about buying a gun this way. But I do know that with a clean record I can walk into a gun store and purchase a gun. For a guy on the edge who has lost it, like the Las Vegas guy, he knew all he had to do was walk into a store. You have no way to show that he had the ability to arm himself at this level via the black market.
Oh really? Because I got a woman busted who was running guns. She wouldn't have a transfer done on a 1911 I wanted to purchase from her.
Seemed odd with all of the excuses not to want to have a 4473 filled out. Reported it. That very 1911 was reported stolen from a gun store in Ohio. Made its way to Florida... also found more with missing serial numbers.
I did the responsible thing. It's not required by law to have a 4473 filled out, but how do I know that weapon wasn't used in crime or stolen? Therfore I don't engage with private sales unless the seller agrees to meeting at a store to have a 4473 filled out at my expense. Same for when I have sold weapons. I'm not selling to a potential loon nor a potential felon or fugitive.
With his money. He could have had the real deal, not bump stocks.
With his money, he could have easily gone down to his local crime element/gang and put down the cash to make it happen.
There is no assumption. You're just again trying the easy way out...
What is "disarming" about allowing you to own and conceal a gun? The correct answer of course is nothing. You are free to carry a gun, it is in the Constitution that you have the right to bear arms. This is not the issue. The issue is you do not need multiple AK 47s and bump stocks to protect yourself.
1) "Need" is not required to exercise 2nd amendment rights.
2) While self defense is a nice advantage associated with the 2nd, it isn't the reason it exists. The 2nd amendment exists to allow the people to defend against government tyranny.
At the time of ratification, defending against tyranny with weapons parity with soldiers of the times meant having a flintlock musket and a 6 lb. field piece. Today, it means having an M4 and a S.A.W.
Sorry that you don't get it, but the intent of the founders is very clear.
This is true. But again you are assuming people have access to those guns on the black market. I haven't a clue how to go about buying a gun this way. But I do know that with a clean record I can walk into a gun store and purchase a gun. For a guy on the edge who has lost it, like the Las Vegas guy, he knew all he had to do was walk into a store. You have no way to show that he had the ability to arm himself at this level via the black market.
That isn't the point. The point is that it would have been impossible to stop him without seriously trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. And once those rights are trampled, it still would have been impossible to stop him.
No one in this thread has presented a workable solution that would have prevented this tragedy.
Anti-gun people have tried every method under the sun, supposedly to try to reduce shootings. They have uniformly failed. The rate of shootings continues to climb, varying only be location and dated, but not in deadliness. And yet they continue to call for the same things to be tried again and again.
But one method WILL work.
Don't pussyfoot around. Ban all private ownership of guns, period. And enforce it. This will dry up the supply until even the worst criminals can't get a gun any more.
Can anyone see a way this would NOT work in reducing shootings in this country?
Crime is illegal. Unfortunately, we still have plenty of it.
Edit to add: Upon re-reading, it appears that you may have not actually been arguing for a complete ban. But I'll leave my original post for anyone that actually thinks it is a workable idea.
That isn't the point. The point is that it would have been impossible to stop him without seriously trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. And once those rights are trampled, it still would have been impossible to stop him.
No one in this thread has presented a workable solution that would have prevented this tragedy.
Wait for them to want to put the government inside everyone's houses and on their streets, surveillance on purchases and such as a way to prove intent.
Forfeit privacy, for the government has your best interest in mind.
It's like that shot spotter gimmick.
Went out on Long Island once with some friends. They told me about that system... it can be triggered by smacking 2 bricks together! Lol
It's like that commercial... I'm not a security guard I'm a security monitor. Yup this is an armed robbery.
All that system does is waste tax payer dollars to give police a rough idea of where a shooter may be.
Guess they're going to want some sort of band that goes around your head to monitor thoughts to pinpoint potential evil doers.
To be that naive to suggest more control measures are going to prevent it... pfft.
Or wanting TSA style security measures implemented... that whole trading liberty for security...
I got groped and was held up for minutes and all of my stuff was shuffled through and they even performed a cavity search on me!
Well that's what happens when you trade liberty for security...
It is also no coincidence that the U.S. has the most laws disarming the law-abiding while criminals remain armed. This leads directly to the situation you pretend to care about in your post.
Yet liberals constantly demand more such counterproductive laws. Can they possibly ALL be that ignorant of the results?
I doubt it. But they keep demanding them anyway.
Draw your own conclusions about their goals.
I've certainly drawn my conclusions.
Their ultimate goal is to enslave us to a socialist aristocracy of which they control. That's just one of the reasons why they need a permanent underclass to sustain their power structure. An underclass that is dependent on the government for their every need. As the underclass grows, so does the size of government and the control they have over peoples lives. There are not enough wealthy people to tax into oblivion to sustain our benevolent government. So the government has to get the funds elsewhere which falls on the backs of the middle class. Who end up being pushed further down the economic ladder to the point that they too will demand some type of governmental assistance in order to make ends meet. Hence the birth of socialism and the end of capitalism has begun. I'll bet that if you or I were to read the Democratic Party's platform we'd be against just about everything they supposedly stand for.
Yeah they believe in equality alright. That we all should be equally poor and dependent on them and their wealthy overlords. You ever notice how wealthy some politicians have become once they've entered public service? The Clinton's in particular have amassed a fortune. So has Obama. It's one thing to be wealthy before entering politics. But quite another to become wealthy all in the name of public service.
Quote:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”
“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
“Authority that does not exist for Liberty is not authority but force.”
“Everybody likes to get as much power as circumstances allow, and nobody will vote for a self-denying ordinance.”
“Absolute power demoralizes.”--- Lord Acton
There is no way in hell that they can enslave a heavily armed populace. They know this. They're just using criminal acts of mass murder to deceive the public into believing that it's all about public safety. Knowing full well that all the laws in the world will not be able to stop career criminals, criminal gangs and someone who is hell bent on a suicide mission. As we already have all the laws in the world that address that. They play on the fears of the ignorant and uninformed as the end justifies the means. An end that the majority of Americans would be opposed to once they are subjected to it. We're not quite there yet, but that's the direction we're headed in as people tend to not notice when things happen gradually until it's too late. It's at that point that people will want to revolt.
I wonder how long the governments of Venezuela, North Korea or any other of the world's socialist dictatorships would last if their subjects were allowed to bear arms? I'd be willing to bet that they'd be subjects no longer.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 10-18-2017 at 03:46 PM..
Crime is illegal. Unfortunately, we still have plenty of it.
Edit to add: Upon re-reading, it appears that you may have not actually been arguing for a complete ban. But I'll leave my original post for anyone that actually thinks it is a workable idea.
Didn't even read the whole post, did you?
I wasn't arguing for a complete ban. Just pointing out that a complete ban, backed up by ruthless and total confiscation and enforcement, is the ONLY method that actually will reduce or eliminate gun crimes.
Have we had ruthless and total confiscation of heroin and its means of production? With all the collateral damage that will cause? Your comparison is obviously inaccurate and incomplete.
I didn't say that simply making guns illegal, would eliminate them. I carefully pointed out that it would have to be accompanied by a ruthless and violent nationwide confiscation program that the Soviet Union in its heyday could only dream of. Without that, you're right, simply making a few laws wouldn't work. Just as making a few laws as gun-control people keep doing, has never worked.
Of course, a program like that would cause more violence, killings, and major battles than we have seen in this country since the Civil War.
But when the "gun control" people accumulate enough experience to realize that their "just a few more reasonable restrictions" NEVER work... why do they keep demanding them anyway?
They are running out of alternatives. Except the one I described earlier.
How can we avoid the conclusion that that's what they ultimately intend?
They are running out of alternatives. Except the one I described earlier.
How can we avoid the conclusion that that's what they ultimately intend?
Welp. For starters. We could all start a massive go fund me.
Skip the range one weekend, and throw the money in the pot.
Buy these people their citizenship to an anti gun country of their choosing, pay their shipping expenses.
I'm okay with that.
They focus on removing regulating and banning the implement.
We focus on removing incentive of using the implement in a criminal manner.
They get their utopian anti firearm world.
America remains land of the free home of the brave. Where it sucks to be a criminal or a loon.
I mean heck. I fled NY when the one legitimate opportunity to overthrow prince Cuomos firearm legislation out the window presented itself and republicants said nope and turned their backs and let it happen. If I can pack up and move to a free state, they with their "wealthy cities" should have no problem to do the same.
Or do we divide the states again? No firearms allowed beyond this line? If caught instant imprisonment?
I mean they do brag an awful lot for having wealth, praising other countries for their laws... let them go there. I didn't love NY anymore. Florida or Texas...
we could probably develop a trade system for countries who's citizens want freedom. I'm sure an awful lot of Venezuelans would not mind trading where they are for a spot on the map in America, and the anti gunners get their socialist government they always wanted without guns to boot.
Win-win everyone is happy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I got groped and was held up for minutes and all of my stuff was shuffled through and they even performed a cavity search on me!
we could probably develop a trade system for countries who's citizens want freedom. I'm sure an awful lot of Venezuelans would not mind trading where they are for a spot on the map in America, and the anti gunners get their socialist government they always wanted without guns to boot. 
