America's unique gun violence (legal, drug, FBI, statistics)

[Floorist]

Until the gun control freaks address the inner city gangs where most murders are committed, no one will take them seriously. Instead, they concentrate on trying to take guns from those who have committed no crimes. If all legal gun owners gave up their guns, the murder rate would change very little. In fact, it might increase, because few people would be able to defend themselves and criminals would have no fear of running into an armed person.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

"About three-quarters (76%) of Democrats say the ease with which people can legally obtain guns contributes a great deal or fair amount to gun violence, compared with just 39% of Republicans.

By contrast, more than eight-in-ten Republicans (84%) and Democrats (88%) say the ease with which people can illegally obtain guns contributes a great deal or a fair amount to gun violence."

Where Republicans and Democrats agree, differ on gun policy | Pew Research Center

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Stupid comment, don't you think? Maybe you could at least explain why you think the article is mostly stupid?

Or is this some sort of stupid competition to argue the other is stupid with just another round of stupid comments?

Right. Never mind. I really just wanted to get in and out of this gun thread with some information that might be worth considering. I do NOT want to get into another round of playing the who is most stupid game. I'll leave that to you and those who seem to love that game above all else.

Magazine capacity may be what he's referring to as stupid...

Cuomo turned me and many others into felons over night with his Safe Act for magazine capacity. Get caught with more than 7 rounds outside of a sanctioned shooting range, felony charge and off to the gulag for wrong think and possession.

Magazine capacity was irrelevant in solving anything in NY as most weapons used are ya ready, were 6 shooters and burner pistols.

Registries may be what he finds stupid.

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

(4) PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person who, or entity that, violates a provision of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Except as required by the provisions of s. 16, Art. I of the State Constitution or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no public funds shall be used to defend the unlawful conduct of any person charged with a violation of this section, unless the charges against such person are dismissed or such person is determined to be not guilty at trial. Notwithstanding this paragraph, public funds may be expended to provide the services of the office of public defender or court-appointed conflict counsel as provided by law.
(c) The governmental entity, or the designee of such governmental entity, in whose service or employ a list, record, or registry was compiled in violation of this section may be assessed a fine of not more than $5 million, if the court determines that the evidence shows that the list, record, or registry was compiled or maintained with the knowledge or complicity of the management of the governmental entity. The Attorney General may bring a civil cause of action to enforce the fines assessed under this paragraph.

Registries don't do anything but keep tabs on who has what and where. It can be politicized it can serve as a shopping list for thieves if a database were created and breached. It can serve as a tool for harassment. Post a police officer outside the house of the firearm owner for merely possessing is deemed a threat to public health and safety.

Here's the fact of it.
1. Serial numbers can not legally be destroyed or altered.
What will a registry do to prevent or stop anything? It wont.
2. Most weapons used in crime the serial numbers are destroyed. Follow me down the rabbit hole here.
3. Weapons are ditched. A dive team found 3 pistols in the Hudson River that were so badly corroded they couldn't lift any serial number or finger prints.
There's also recirculating the weapon used in a crime. Selling it to someone else. And usually the serial numbers are destroyed. They can match the ballistics though.

To serve as a trace? Well in that case...
4. 4473s are going to show who owned the weapon and where it was purchased.
If stolen, usually it is reported as stolen.
If missing, it usually is reported as missing.
States have laws regarding reporting stolen and missing firearms. Failure to do so is a crime.
Straw purchases are illegal.
In the above common cases of how criminals obtain weapons, underground purchases, straw purchases, and theft are all illegal.

We have laws that address these issues on the books. They work when enforced.

What he and I find asinine is that we aren't the ones who should be punished with draconian laws, neither should future generations to come.

How is it with all of the standard capacity magazines that others deem as high capacity, how is it I have never committed a crime?
Could it be I value my freedom my life, my lifestyle and do not see road rage or domestic violence or being a menace to society beneficial to my life? Yup.
So why should your proposed emotionally driven knee jerk responses apply to me and millions of others like me who
1. Have no desire to threaten others.
2. Have no desire to do harm onto others for the sake of doing harm.
3. Have no desire to commit a crime.
4. Have no desire to engage in criminal enterprise.
5. Have no ill thoughts nor submit our power to someone else in participating in road rage or domestic violence or go on a homicidal rampage.

Why should our rights and the future generations to come, have their rights curtailed?

It is often overlooked when these incidents occur. There was no deterrence present.

Take the Texas Church shooting for example.
There were anti gun folks in that thread who outright said NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
These same people clamor for "responsible gun owners". This dude that responded WAS by all measures a responsible gun owner. He didn't keep any magazines loaded. Precious seconds to make a difference were wasted loading magazines!
Had he kept loaded magazines the same crowd would tear that guys integrity apart and call him some sort of loon for having all of that ammo readily loaded and accessible...

I get it all of the time.
I train.
I compete.
I get called Rambo I get mocked. I get the "all talk until it happens" accusations, I get the "you're not law enforcement" and every other naysayer doomsday pessimistic sentiments slung at me for stating I won't tolerate this stuff that I would act in accordance with the law and do my part as a responsible lawful and law abiding gun owner to stop these threats.
And it gets taken for "you are a nut" "ammo sexual" "rambo" "seek help" coming from the lemmings who would do nothing but run or lay down to become another statistic.
"You Glorify violence!"
Wrong.
I don't. I never once said what would be required would be easy, or pleasant.
I justify lawful defense of my self, my property, my fellow man/woman.
I'm not a lemming. Seconds matter, help is minutes away. I won't tolerate someone giving law abiding gun owners a bad reputation. I won't tolerate someone extinguishing the lives of others for their blood lust to create as much havoc and chaos.

That's where the flaw lies in the lemming mentality of ban regulate legislate away implements. They believe inanimate objects cause these things. Really?
Yes because the voice from that weapon chanted do it over and over again. It sprang out of the safe carrying magazines and ammo cans chambered itself and said go do it.

Ban something? Ban criminals. Ban those who have no value of their life or the lives of others. Not something I and millions of others may have, and do not commit any criminal offenses with...

Punish something? Punish those who seek to destroy for their evil sick sadistic ways.
Don't punish us and future generations by curtailing rights to fit your agenda.
That's a false equivalency.

Time and time again with all of these "reports" it's often over looked-Gun Free Zones don't work. Seconds matter. Help is only minutes away. Can't carry a cop in your waistband can ya?

We protect cash in bank trucks with those willing to be trained and armed... yet not school kids.
I have no opposition to training and arming school faculty members. Teachers. Janitors. Hall monitors. Principals. Deans.
None what so ever. Matter of fact, I would volunteer to help train them. I would want to make sure they are well prepared for any threat that may ever arise and be able to thwart it with impunity to protect kids.
Again the doomsday and naysayers will say oh teachers will lose guns, teachers will become disarmed, teachers will snap and shoot kids themselves. So on so forth.

I don't know. I had some pretty strict Irish and Catholic parents. Neither my mother or father ever grabbed a gun and pointed it at me in a heated argument. And I could be a real mouthy prick to them. Slapped upside the head punched in the mouth? Sure. Gun pointed at me or threatened with death? Never.
I don't buy the pessimistic excuses for not allowing school faculty members to have means of defense. I can address the concerns the naysayers would come up with. Hyperbolic what ifs?! No. Realistic concerns? Yes.

When I hear things like "the right is ignorant for they don't believe in evolution" and that same crowd exclaim "guns don't belong in schools period" or "teachers shouldn't be expected to be armed and trained"
What happened to that whole "evolution" stance?

A metal detector. X-ray scanners. Bullet proof glass. Cameras. Vault doors. Safe rooms. Fortresses for school buildings.
Yes. Let's raise taxes and seek more federal spending... again it won't solve anything or prevent anything. Overlook the simplest approach that is most cost effective.
You have a body of people inside the school. Adults. Adults who are just like me, a felony conviction would cripple their chance at being employed.

Especially felony charges of sexual, violent, and drug related crimes.
So there. We have upstanding citizens.

What's the excuse from barring them their right to keep and bear arms and train for lawful defense to serve as a deterrence?
I hear guns lifted by kids I hear excuses made galore. Tells me nobody is truly interested in doing anything that hits on all cylinders. I'll address the legitimate concerns, but hyperbolic rhetoric nah.

1. Protect life.
2. Preserve liberty.
3. Stop demonizing others pursuits of happiness. And ensuring future generations are protected to have a pursuit of happiness.

Tells me they'd rather come and claim me and millions like me are criminals, threats to public safety and rights need to be curtailed as according to them.

[rigby06]

++++++ 1 to this NY_refugee87 I can only increase your reputation once for this.


When I was in my early twenties, at this point I may have had a single firearm, and had almost no ammo, I was called a Gun Nut since I enjoyed talking about the subject; and this was almost 30 years ago.

[lvmensch]

This not hard stuff. If you have burglars and people stealing stuff from cars you are going to have guns stolen and released into the criminal world. If you have 300 million guns out there there is about 10 times the chance a gun will get to the criminals as there would be if there were 30 million guns. And of course you will have people who properly secure their guns and they will never get loose. But in any gun owner population there will be the weak sisters...like the BLM cop who lost his firearm in SF.

The argument for limiting or banning the AR class weapons is that their only purpose is killing people efficiently in large numbers. An effective limit might be on semi-automatic hand guns which are actually the criminals gun of choice. Leave revolvers and shotguns as defense weapons.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by rigby06

++++++ 1 to this NY_refugee87 I can only increase your reputation once for this.


When I was in my early twenties, at this point I may have had a single firearm, and had almost no ammo, I was called a Gun Nut since I enjoyed talking about the subject; and this was almost 30 years ago.

I've been alive for 30 years. I've had my rights altered when I lived in NY. All I have ever heard was that firearms are bad and you don't need one. Meanwhile reality said different and had as many as I wanted.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

This not hard stuff.

Youre right it isnt. Don't like guns don't buy one.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

If you have burglars and people stealing stuff from cars you are going to have guns stolen and released into the criminal world.

Seeing how they would need to first break into the truck 2nd locate the weapon and 3rd find a way to get it out... my ***** is more secure than a police cruiser. Police cruiser. Pop the pins on the upper and lower wiggle the upper out, wiggle the lower out. Viola you have a police officers weapon. Mine. You're needing loud tools. Or your messing up the weapon leaving it inoperable

Originally Posted by lvmensch

If you have 300 million guns out there there is about 10 times the chance a gun will get to the criminals as there would be if there were 30 million guns.

And if we had only 30 million cry baby liberals confined to California life would be much better without them constantly attacking my rights and the rights of millions of others. But you don't see me calling for the banning of liberals and their cancerous ideology.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

And of course you will have people who properly secure their guns and they will never get loose. But in any gun owner population there will be the weak sisters...like the BLM cop who lost his firearm in SF.

And in the case of the air Marshalls leaving their service weapon in the bathroom the devices currently used in police cruisers that can easily be defeated... yes. And it proves exactly the point that the almighty big brother is not as infallible as everyone thinks or believes. Government loses more guns than citizens do but that's hush hush and swept under the rug. Why? Their stuff is full auto.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

The argument for limiting or banning the AR class weapons is that their only purpose is killing people efficiently in large numbers..

Really? Fists killed more than ARs have.


My ARs and Millions of others ARS haven't killed people in large numbers.
Data reflects that
Even with Sandy Hook.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

An effective limit might be on semi-automatic hand guns which are actually the criminals gun of choice. Leave revolvers and shotguns as defense weapons.

Nope.

You aren't punishing me nor anyone else for what some Ahole with a vendetta did.
I won't stand for it. Nor allow it.

You want shotguns. Go look at what damage a 12 gauge slug at 20 feet will do compared to that glorified 22 that the typical AR fires can do. Or even double 00.

You really didn't think that through did you? Or you've never shot a buck with a 12ga slug have you?

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

I've been alive for 30 years. I've had my rights altered when I lived in NY. All I have ever heard was that firearms are bad and you don't need one. Meanwhile reality said different and had as many as I wanted.



Youre right it isnt. Don't like guns don't buy one.



Seeing how they would need to first break into the truck 2nd locate the weapon and 3rd find a way to get it out... my ***** is more secure than a police cruiser. Police cruiser. Pop the pins on the upper and lower wiggle the upper out, wiggle the lower out. Viola you have a police officers weapon. Mine. You're needing loud tools. Or your messing up the weapon leaving it inoperable



And if we had only 30 million cry baby liberals confined to California life would be much better without them constantly attacking my rights and the rights of millions of others. But you don't see me calling for the banning of liberals and their cancerous ideology.



And in the case of the air Marshalls leaving their service weapon in the bathroom the devices currently used in police cruisers that can easily be defeated... yes. And it proves exactly the point that the almighty big brother is not as infallible as everyone thinks or believes. Government loses more guns than citizens do but that's hush hush and swept under the rug. Why? Their stuff is full auto.



Really? Fists killed more than ARs have.


My ARs and Millions of others ARS haven't killed people in large numbers.
Data reflects that
Even with Sandy Hook.


Nope.

You aren't punishing me nor anyone else for what some Ahole with a vendetta did.
I won't stand for it. Nor allow it.

You want shotguns. Go look at what damage a 12 gauge slug at 20 feet will do compared to that glorified 22 that the typical AR fires can do. Or even double 00.

You really didn't think that through did you? Or you've never shot a buck with a 12ga slug have you?

It has nothing to do with the statistics. The weapon has no good purpose other than killing people. And if was banned there would likely be 40 or so people alive in both LV and Pulse.

And try and take out over 500 people at 400 yards with a 12 gauge.

Never shot a buck with anything. But I have fired virtually all common weapons up to 50 caliber.

If someone came up with a half kiloton weapon that weighed ten lbs I would be strongly in favor of banning it. I do not think I would care if some poor hobbyist was not allowed to create craters or blow up stumps. Same problem with ARs.

[Boris347]

How can anyone take the Left Wingnuts seriously on any gun control issue when the have pushed for bans on "Scary Looking " guns, Muzzle brakes for guns, pistol grips for guns and many other stupid bans that do nothing nor effect the gun in any way. Most of these people have no clue about any aspect f guns. You hear them call the AR a "Powerful" or "High Powered" rifle, when in facts its a small bullet that doesn't qualify as a High Powered anything. I would rather be shot with an AR than a 12 gauge shotgun with buckshot. Anti-gun stupid's don't know that. They think its next thing to an anti-Tank gun. There is no way any gun owners can take these clowns seriously and should reject all their dumb gun Laws and just ignore them. They are not enforceable. Don't register anything and buy used if you have to, so you don't have to register it, since no one knows you bought it. Like they say about Trump. "NOT MY GUN LAWS." Must be OK f they use that for things they don't like.

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

This not hard stuff. If you have burglars and people stealing stuff from cars you are going to have guns stolen and released into the criminal world. If you have 300 million guns out there there is about 10 times the chance a gun will get to the criminals as there would be if there were 30 million guns. And of course you will have people who properly secure their guns and they will never get loose. But in any gun owner population there will be the weak sisters...like the BLM cop who lost his firearm in SF.

The argument for limiting or banning the AR class weapons is that their only purpose is killing people efficiently in large numbers. An effective limit might be on semi-automatic hand guns which are actually the criminals gun of choice. Leave revolvers and shotguns as defense weapons.

Be careful, your ignorance is showing.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Floorist

Be careful, your ignorance is showing.

Be careful, your ignorance is showing.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

It has nothing to do with the statistics.

LOL there you defeating your previous arguments about rates and statistics again...

Which will it be.
The UK has lower statistics?
The AR15 kills less than hands fists feet knives?

Originally Posted by lvmensch

The weapon has no good purpose other than killing people.

It's good for hogs, economical for target and competition shooting, a good hobby to get into providing you aren't a felon or drug user or hold a conviction for domestic violence, a fugitive from justice, or guilty of any crime or adjudicated mentally defect.
Odd. My ARs, my sisters ARs, my girlfriends AR and AKs and millions of others haven't killed anyone...

Originally Posted by lvmensch

And if was banned there would likely be 40 or so people alive in both LV and Pulse.

Actually, if the FBI did their job when my local gun store called them and told them of Mateen... and had pulled him in for questioning and temporarily held any NICS processing Orlando wouldn't have happened.
Actually if Campos was armed... or anyone on the 32nd floor was to engage paddock even if only drawing fire to provide people below the ample time to escape...

Originally Posted by lvmensch

And try and take out over 500 people at 400 yards with a 12 gauge.

I wouldn't I have no desire to.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Never shot a buck with anything.

I have. A 12 gauge will inflict far superior damage to tissue and organs than a low mass high velocity carbine can.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

But I have fired virtually all common weapons up to 50 caliber.

Fun isn't it?

Originally Posted by lvmensch

If someone came up with a half kiloton weapon that weighed ten lbs I would be strongly in favor of banning it. I do not think I would care if some poor hobbyist was not allowed to create craters or blow up stumps. Same problem with ARs.

There's actually a process with the ATF to create lawful destructive devices as you mention. And yes. It is legal. No not the same problem with ARs...

That's apples or airplanes in comparison and you know it.