web analytics

The Majority

By Patrick Van Roy On August 18th, 2019

358 Responses to “The Majority”

  1. From sixteen months ago. How many mass shooting have their been in that time?

    He’s not the majority, I recently supplied a link which showed that around 34% of American homes with children, with teenagers and without children and teenagers own guns.

    As for restricting guns and bad guys having access to guns: What’s wrong with gun restrictions? No one needs anything past a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection. Bad guys in Europe have guns too, but we also have a minuscule fraction of the gun violence that the US has.

    There’s a reason for that.

    While on the subject of majorities, I can think of another majority in 2016 too.

  2. no he said he is the Majority…. A Law Abiding Citizen…. you missed the whole point.

  3. Law-abiding citizens are the majority?

    Any more news?

  4. A Law Abiding Citizen…. you missed the whole point

    I’m a law abiding citizen as I assume most are on ATW and in most countries, including the US. What makes him a minority of the majority is he advocates unrestricted gun ownership.

    So why do law abiding citizens in the US need anything more than small calibre revolver for personal and home protection while law abiding citizens in Europe don’t?

  5. no he doesn’t advocate unrestricted gun ownership. He argues against punishing Law Abiding Citizens for the actions of the criminal and the insane.

  6. So why do law abiding citizens in the US need anything more than small calibre revolver for personal and home protection while law abiding citizens in Europe don’t?

    because the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the population can overthrow the government by force.

    The founders of all your countries didn’t want the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow them if they became tyrants…. ours did.

  7. He doesn’t advocate unrestricted gun ownership.

    He does, from 1.09 to 1.20 he complains of people wanting to ‘retrict his right’ to buy a firarm. He is against restrictions.

    Because the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the population can overthrow the government by force

    So it’s not about personal and home protection but about terrorism overthrowing an elected government that you don’t like by force of arms? Okay, in which states can I buy a 50 cal heavy machine gun, an RPG and three Stinger missiles?

  8. “ It’s a guarantee that a rabble can shoot police officers and US military If we don’t get our way on everything “

  9. Pat, could you check your mail please?

  10. Patrick.

    because the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the population can overthrow the government by force.

    That may have been true once, but no longer is. If your military supported your government, your population could not overthrow them.

  11. our military is populated by middle class americans the majority of which come from households with guns in them…. so do you think they’re going to go to war with their own families… sorry not here.

  12. This is all a dangerous and angry and uneducated fantasy About killing cops and killing our military If a few bums think they are unhappy

    It is highly treasonous as Bundy and McVeigh are and were treasonous

  13. not at home paul… it’l take me a bit

  14. Phantom you’re the only one talking about killing or fighting cops the video explicitly said that’s not this is about… but you keep trying to spin it if that’s all you got.

  15. Our military is populated by middle class Americans the majority of which come from households with guns in them

    Bearing in mind the fact that only 34% of Americans there is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that claim.

    And, based on empirical observation I’d suggest that in all probability the majority of the military come from a working class background.

    Not at home paul… it’l take me a bit

    No problem, whenever you can.

  16. * Bearing in mind the fact that only 34% of Americans have guns at home

  17. Paul is your post time sensitive?

  18. Paul McMahon, on August 18th, 2019 at 5:47 PM Said: Edit Comment
    * Bearing in mind the fact that only 34% of Americans have guns at home

    Less than 1 percent of the population ever enlist…. the majority of that 1 come from the 34

    saw your response after I ask if it was time sensitive I take care of it tonight it’l be there when you get up

  19. So you are suggesting the majority of American soldiers are not loyal to the United States and are willing to commit treason? You clearly have a very poor view on American soldiers.

  20. The majority of that 1 come from the 34

    There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that either

  21. Pat

    You keep threatening that so-called patriots Will rise up against the US government With arms if these pantywaist don’t get what they want

    Well The government isn’t a piece of paper or a building ; The government is people

    So who will your friends start shooting if they don’t get their way

    You’re trying to say that they won’t kill any soldiers or policeman; even though these people are the armed power of the government You say that They won’t kill any of the government employees who can shoot back allrighy then

    So who are you fantasizing about killing? Bernie Sanders? Nancy Pelosi? Michael Bloomberg?

    You’re running around threatening to kill hundreds of thousands of people but you have no idea in the world who those people would be?

  22. It’s a fig leaf to hide behind because they don’t want restrictions put on their deadly toys Phantom.

    The US has had a stable democracy for hundreds of years and there will never be an instance when terrorism force of arms will be used to overthrow a democratically elected government and even if by some freak of history it were to happen according to Pat the terrorists citizens would all put their names to a document and declare war. Martial Law would be declared and the terrorists militia would then be rounded up and imprisoned in dentention camps or coralled into their remote bases and sent to bed with a few drone missile strikes.

    In other words, hunted, caged and killed.

    People like Pat tell us they need guns for protection. When asked why they need semi auto long barrelled guns for protection they tell us they’re a safeguard to overthrow the government. When asked how the black guns will be effective against an armoured humvee with a mounted 50 cal HMG they go silent.

    It’s a shibboleth. A fiction to hide behind the fact that they don’t want restrictions on their deadly playthings.

  23. Well I was jumping in to see if there was a way to have a conversation with you Paul about your post…. but I can’t let that pass….

    give me a minute I type slow….

  24. Lets put all of both of your idiocy to bed shall we….

    I don’t advocate the overthrow of the US Government.
    I don’t believe the US will EVER have another civil war.
    I don’t believe they will ever Ban Guns or Try to Seize them….

    That being said more to follow, I’m going to answer this is spurts

  25. Surely Pat. Say your piece and tack the post comments onto the end.

  26. Everytime there is a mass shooting wackos scream take the guns and other wackos scream 2nd amendment overthrow the government.

    It’s called an ECHO the one begets the other and both are just noise in the air.

    They can make all the little around the edge adjustments they want, but they can’t take the guns. Both sides know it but it’s the endless dance.

    I like the dance.

    That’s it in a nutshell.

    see it wasn’t the long winded schpeel you thought you were gonna get….

  27. paul are you on twitter

  28. No Pat. I don’t have a Twitter account.

    Everytime there is a mass shooting wackos scream take the guns and other wackos scream 2nd amendment overthrow the government.

    No one has screamed about taking the guns, just a reasonable restriction to those needed for home and personal protection.

    This is what some whacko was screaming warlier about the 2nd ammendment and terrorism overthrowing the government with violence earlier though:

    Because the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the population can overthrow the government by force

  29. They are calling to confiscate the guns Paul, they do all the time. There are several dems running for president that have said it…. no one takes it seriously because bothsides know it will never happen.

    The 2nd amd was to guarantee that the government could be overthrown by the people and it did it’s job the saturation of firepower in civilian hands in this country is directly due to it.

    The discussion about firearms is also the main obstacle to solving the violence problem.

    because the violence isn’t due to the guns.

  30. check your mail

  31. If the worst gun grabber in the world, Perhaps Michael Bloomberg in your mind, was elected president And he proposed and got congress to approve a ban of all private ownership of assault weapons.And the federal government And state governments were involved in physical action to take AR 15s From criminals who refused to obey the law. Who would you guys shoot? No more evasion please.

    This isn’t an academic question. Assault weapons were illegal in the recent past.

    And let’s not have any stupid angels are the head of a pin discussion about “ what is an assault weapon anyway “

  32. That’s well said. It’s a voice from the heartland, of the majority, which the commies hardly ever hear.

  33. see wackos keep saying it’s possible… lmao

  34. Evaders keep doing the shimmy shake

  35. my comment was in response to phantom

  36. an assault weapon is a weapon that when you pull the trigger and hold it it continuously fires

  37. there are less than 10 of those sold every year and they are tracked better than the crown jewels. NONE have ever been used in a crime since the system to control these weapons were put in place.

  38. now who’s evading

  39. All these are assault weapons

    http://www.military-today.com/firearms/top_10_assault_rifles.htm

    If these were banned by the federal government, And the police forces started taking them away from criminals who refused to turn them, Who would the gun nuts shoot first?

    Nancy Pelosi, or the police forces that were doing the confiscating ?

  40. They are calling to confiscate the guns Paul

    I don’t think they are, certainly not in any great numbers. And I don’t think that anyone has made that suggestion here.

    Direct question to you personally. Would you agree with with weapon’s restrictions limited to a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection and if not why not?

    I checked my mail and whilst I think it goes against the principle of free speech which is suposedly sacrosanct around these parts I appreciate the dilemma and understand your position.

  41. I think that a large number of people are calling for the banning of assault weapons

    And I also think that a very small number of people are Calling for the banning of firearms generally

  42. Partick is intentionally confusing the possible ban of the weapons of choice of mass murderers ( AR 15s and the like )with the banning of all weapons used for personal defense or hunting

  43. Patrick Van Roy, on August 18th, 2019 at 9:09 PM Said:

    //an assault weapon is a weapon that when you pull the trigger and hold it it continuously fires

    there are less than 10 of those sold every year///

    Hold on. Is is true that less than 10 assault weapons are sold in the US every year?

  44. Noel

    He is bullshitting and fake newsing As he always does on this subject

    He’s going to pretend that he doesn’t know what an assault weapon is

  45. Thank you Paul

  46. Phantom, on August 18th, 2019 at 9:19 PM Said: Edit Comment
    All these are assault weapons

    http://www.military-today.com/firearms/top_10_assault_rifles.htm

    If these were banned by the federal government, And the police forces started taking them away from criminals who refused to turn them, Who would the gun nuts shoot first?

    Nancy Pelosi, or the police forces that were doing the confiscating ?

    And right there is the LIE….

    Not one of those rifles that phantom link to are available to the general public.

    They call REPLICAS of them that don’t fire more than one round at a time the same as any deer rifle, but inbreds are too stoopid to know that.

    The problem people who peddle that lie have is the gun owning public knows the difference and they truly believe that anyone too stooopid not to know the difference sure as hell should not be writing any laws concerning them……

  47. Pat,

    Direct question to you personally. Would you agree with with weapon’s restrictions limited to a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection and if not why not?

    Yes or no?

  48. * With special exceptions for hunting, pest control etc.

  49. Hold on. Is is true that less than 10 assault weapons are sold in the US every year?

    Yes Noel that is True. Those style weapons require a very special background check and less than 10 are ever done a year.

    The background, and home storage inspection of where your storing it can take upto 2 years to complete and they can reject you from permission at a standard 100 times stricter than a normal background check.

    Phantom has no clue what he’s talking about and I’ve done this for a living… you believe who you choose.

  50. The AR15 -was banned- under the old assault weapons law

    Patrick is bullshitting once again as he always does on this issue

    If you think that they were not banned under the old law, then you should have no problem with bringing that law back in force

  51. Paul McMahon, on August 18th, 2019 at 10:01 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Pat,

    Direct question to you personally. Would you agree with with weapon’s restrictions limited to a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection and if not why not?

    Yes or no? With special exceptions for hunting, pest control etc

    Me personally I don’t see the need for anymore than two firearms. A personal protection handgun and a 12ga for home defense.

    As for restriction…. it goes without saying I am speaking in regard to the law abiding population….

    There is no need for fullyauto even with the special permitting. They truly are weapons of War if you want to fire one join the marines.

    And no one should be allowed to own a firearm without passing a minimum 10hr course and 2 live fire training sessions.

    but those are my personal views.

  52. http://www.military-today.com/firearms/top_10_assault_rifles.htm

    The AR 15 Is the weapon of choice of mass murderers

    They have no legitimate role in self-defense or hunting, No honest person will ever say that they do

    Can we all agree on that

  53. Pardon

    https://fortune.com/2016/06/13/ar-15-mass-murderer-link/

  54. Phantom, on August 18th, 2019 at 10:07 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The AR15 -was banned- under the old assault weapons law

    Patrick is bullshitting once again as he always does on this issue

    If you think that they were not banned under the old law, then you should have no problem with bringing that law back in force

    Diane Feinstein chose what guns were in that Law by going through a catalog and picking the ones she thought LOOKED SCARY that concerns me, it should concern you also….

    There were no other criteria for choosing…. so NO

  55. Phantom what is an AR-15…. please describe it…..

    I promise I won’t laugh

  56. The fact that mass murderers love these weapons so much and that they find them so completely useful to their wicked aims doesn’t bother you in the least then?

  57. I’ve played this game before with you

    No more how many angels on the head of the pin discussions

    If you don’t know what an A.R. 15 is look it up

  58. nope

  59. that nope was to your question

  60. Call this website and ask them what an A.R. 15 is

    They will be able to educate you on the subject

    https://www.impactguns.com/ar-15-guns-for-sale/

  61. My 9.26 & 10.01 Pat?

  62. How about instead of arguing whether or not it is an assault weapon etc we just agree that all self-reloading firearms should be banned?

  63. Apologies Pat. I missed your 10.13.

    I’ll come back in a min.

  64. from Phantoms article in forbes or fortune… like look look it’s a real magazine…

    What do James Holmes, Adam Lanza, and Omar Mateen have in common? Besides being the perpetrators of three of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, they all share a preference for the AR-15 assault rifle.

    The AR-15 assault rifle was used at the Aurora, Colo. shooting, the Newtown, Conn. shooting, and now the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla. that killed 50 and is officially the deadliest such massacre in U.S. history.

    The writer of the article is an idiot….. both in colorado and conn. the shooters had REPLICAS of AR-15s they did not have fully automatic rifles……

    It is this ingrained ignorance that causes we gun advocates to laugh….

    and also why in the long run we always win in court. They can’t define “assault weapon” the definitions they try to use fit so many firearms that eventually it’s always laughed out of court….. where the battle is always fought.

  65. Pat is highly argumentative

    How about trying to solve the problem professor?

  66. Seamus, on August 18th, 2019 at 10:23 PM Said: Edit Comment
    How about instead of arguing whether or not it is an assault weapon etc we just agree that all self-reloading firearms should be banned?

    Seamus that description fits every handgun on the market that’s not a revolver.

  67. Me personally I don’t see the need for anymore than two firearms. A personal protection handgun and a 12ga for home defense […]

    There is no need for fully auto even with the special permitting. They truly are weapons of War if you want to fire one join the marines.

    You actually spoke without answering my question. This was the question:

    Direct question to you personally. Would you agree with with weapon’s restrictions limited to a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection and if not why not?

    * With special exceptions for hunting, pest control etc.

    Now, there are two elements there. I speak specifically about

    Weapon’s restrictions limited to a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection

    And,

    If not why not?

    I haven’t spoken about fully auto nor 12 gauges, I speak specifically about a relatively small call (.22, .38 etc) revolver for home and personal protection.

    I think that these are sufficient for home and personal protection and would therefore be in favour of limiting gun laws, (with exceptions), to these.

    Do you agree and if not what are your objections against the proposal?

  68. Phantom, on August 18th, 2019 at 10:36 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Pat is highly argumentative

    How about trying to solve the problem professor?

    Commit a crime with a gun first offense 5yrs no parole, second offense 15yrs no parole, third offense 30yrs no parole… The nice thing is it’s already Federal Law, all they have to do is enforce it.

    The second thing just as vital bring back the nut houses. You want the Federal Government to run Healthcare, alright let them open and run Federal Mental Health Asylums run them for ten years and if they have done a good job and haven’t turned into snakepits I’ll rethink government healthcare.

  69. Direct question to you personally. Would you agree with with weapon’s restrictions limited to a small calibre revolver for personal and home protection and if not why not?

    * With special exceptions for hunting, pest control etc.

    NO

    If not why not?

    I’ll give you both answers….

    Reasonable answer…. it’s not enough firepower… god forbid you ever have to shoot someone. The only reason to pull the trigger except at a range is to kill and a small calibre pistol won’t do it. Home protection should always be a shotgun. And if like I said ever have to defend your person with lethal force… the apt part of that is “lethal”.

    Personal reason…. I carry a Bond Derringer. .45LC/410ga

    https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-handguns/texas-defender/

  70. Patrick Van Roy,
    //our military is populated by middle class americans the majority of which come from households with guns in them…. so do you think they’re going to go to war with their own families… sorry not here.//

    So if you’re sure your military will side with the people rather than the government then why would your people need weapons to rise up against the government?
    Surely the military siding with the people would have more than enough advanced weaponry to take out Capitol hill

  71. Well Phantom I gave you a fair and honest solution…. no comments ?

  72. Dave please go back an read the thread…..

  73. a .38 is more than sufficient to kill but for the sake of argument let’s take it up to a heavier 357 magnum round revolver and the banning, (with exceptions), of all semi auto pistols and long barrels.

    If not why not?

    A further supplementary question,

    Why would anyone, (with exceptions), need a semi auto pistol much less an AR15 long barrel semi auto at home? What are the practical reasons for them?

  74. I agree That there should be reopened insane asylums

    They were closed Because some thought it A violation of rights to commit someone to an insane asylum , While others didn’t want to spend tax money on those facilities

    Both sides Ultimately harmed the insane, and the broader society

  75. yup

  76. What about the mandatory sentencing ?

  77. I believe that Mexico has the kind of gun restrictions that several at ATW wish to impose in the US. How are things working out in Mexico?

  78. Paul McMahon, on August 18th, 2019 at 10:57 PM Said: Edit Comment
    a .38 is more than sufficient to kill but for the sake of argument let’s take it up to a heavier 357 magnum round revolver and the banning, (with exceptions), of all semi auto pistols and long barrels.

    If not why not?

    A further supplementary question,

    Why would anyone, (with exceptions), need a semi auto pistol much less an AR15 long barrel semi auto at home? What are the practical reasons for them?

    Alright we are now in full personal opinion no politics.

    .38 is a great revolver standard issue police service weapon for 100yrs and if someone wants a beefier round buy a .357. Every .357 can take both .38 and .357 rds.

    Two reasons 38s were eased out of law enforcement. The 38 round has a tendency to ricochet, and from vietnam on all the exmilitary joining the force were trained with a 45 or 9mm. most can’t hit shit with a revolver while quite proficient with the semi.

    Now once again personal choice I would carry the revolver… it was the first firearm I was taught to use….

    Question for you Paul….

    I would never carry a fullsize .45 the gun is to big to conceal and wearing it in public does scare the shit out of people which to me is not why you wear one. It is fully legal though for me to carry in public and even though the gun was designed only to be accurate up to 7yds that’s 2 meters I can hit a moving plate at 50ft I used to do it in competition once a month…..

    Why should I be restricted from carrying it ?

  79. Broken Clock…. good question….

    Allan@Aberdeen, on August 18th, 2019 at 11:14 PM Said: Edit Comment
    I believe that Mexico has the kind of gun restrictions that several at ATW wish to impose in the US. How are things working out in Mexico?

  80. Patrick – you are the broken clock. Ever since I started visiting ATW way back in 2006/7, none of your opinions have changed – broken clock. Mine have changed, even radically, and it is a matter of record what they were then and are now.

    Anyway, let’s look at Brazil’s gun laws. Brazil is where US demographics are heading so it’s the future…….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Brazil

    In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25.[1] It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers.[2] To legally own a gun, an owner must hold a gun license, which costs R$1000,[2] and pay a fee every three years to register the gun, currently at R$85.[3] Registration can be done online or in person with the Federal Police.[4] Until 2008, unregistered guns could be legalized for free.[5]

    It is estimated that there are around 17 million firearms in Brazil,[6] 9 million of which are unregistered.[1] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 from gun-related injuries nationwide.[6] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[1]

    How can there possibly be 36,000 gun deaths in a year when all guns require special permit issued only to those deemed suitable to carry? Unbelievable.

    Brazil – 209 million: 36,000 gun deaths: gun ownership restricted
    USA – 320 million, 30,000 gun deaths: gun ownership relaxed

  81. “Seamus that description fits every handgun on the market that’s not a revolver.”

    And?

  82. Brazil is the most awful place

    Even worse Income in equality than other countries

    Dirty cops, Gangs rule the big cities

  83. Patrick – you are the broken clock. Ever since I started visiting ATW way back in 2006/7, none of your opinions have changed

    That’s called consistency

  84. America, in most ways, is not comparable to Brazil, Mexico etc… It is, largely, comparable to Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan etc…

  85. Seamus, on August 18th, 2019 at 11:33 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “Seamus that description fits every handgun on the market that’s not a revolver.”

    And?

    and no…. ya can’t have em….

  86. “and no…. ya can’t have em….”

    Why not? Ban all self-reloading firearms. Why not do it?

  87. if you are going to compare societies you have to use seamus’s

  88. Seamus 1137

    Absolutely correct

    Especially comparable to Canada, Where are the two cultures are almost identical ( except Quebec ) The only difference being that Canadians all have good health coverage,

  89. Why not? Ban all self-reloading firearms. Why not do it?

    Why should we ?

  90. Phantom what about the mandatory sentencing ?

  91. “Why should we ?”

    To substantially reduce the lethality of the guns available. The Founding Fathers used one shot weapons. They seemed to get on fine.

  92. “Phantom what about the mandatory sentencing ?”

    Mandatory sentencing is an appalling invention. An assault on jurisprudence and one that creates injustices. People commit Crime A. There is substantial mitigating circumstances but they still committing the crime. A mandatory sentence in no way shape or form takes account of those mitigation, where as a judge passing sentence can and should.

  93. “if you are going to compare societies you have to use seamus’s”

    If you think comparing a developed country without gun control to a developing country with gun control gives a proper understanding of gun control then you are being pretty silly, and you know it. Comparing countries that are similar is the only way to adequately assess policies.

  94. Alright we are now in full personal opinion no politics.

    .38 is a great revolver standard issue police service weapon for 100yrs and if someone wants a beefier round buy a .357. Every .357 can take both .38 and .357 rds.

    Two reasons 38s were eased out of law enforcement. The 38 round has a tendency to ricochet, and from vietnam on all the exmilitary joining the force were trained with a 45 or 9mm. most can’t hit shit with a revolver while quite proficient with the semi.

    Now once again personal choice I would carry the revolver… it was the first firearm I was taught to use….

    And once again you haven’t said anything which remotely comes near answering my questions.

    Do you agree that all but revolvers (.38, .357 cal), with certain exceptions, for home and personal protection be resticted

    and

    If not why not?

    It’s two clauses of a perfectly simple direct question. The supplementary question was,

    Why would anyone, (with exceptions), need a semi auto pistol much less an AR15 long barrel semi auto at home? What are the practical reasons for them?

    Why should I be restricted from carrying it ?

    Because it’s way and above the power required for home and personal protection and, presuming you’re speaking about a semi auto pistol, there is no practical need above a revolver.

    Now, I’ve directly answered your question above. Please allow me the same courtesy with mine.

  95. Seamus, on August 18th, 2019 at 11:42 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “Why should we ?”

    To substantially reduce the lethality of the guns available. The Founding Fathers used one shot weapons. They seemed to get on fine.

    first machine gun was made in the mid 1700, before independence….. but that’s here nor there. The purpose of a gun is to kill the term “less lethal” is an oxymoron.

  96. The Sentencing isn’t the core of the problem

    The promiscuous Distribution of guns in this society is the problem

    Many criminals and mass murderers Never been convicted of a crime before

  97. “The purpose of a gun is to kill the term “less lethal” is an oxymoron.”

    Nonsense. If you have a single shot gun, that you have to manually reload, then it limits the number of people you can kill over a short period of time. The purpose of the gun is to kill – one person. The intruder in your house. Not 30 school kids. Moving to single shot guns means that you still have all the lethality you need for self defence without having the lethality you need for mass murder.

  98. Do you agree that all but revolvers (.38, .357 cal), with certain exceptions, for home and personal protection be resticted

    and

    If not why not?

    I’m trying… I don’t mean to be obtuse.

    the answer is NO…. unless they are a criminal

    The reason is because there is no need.

  99. The Purpose of a gun is not to shoot to kill in all cases.

    No one who knows anything about guns would say that

    There would be times when a proficient user shoots to wound, to disable. say a deranged person

  100. Tasers are of course a type of arm whose sole purpose is to disable and not to kill

  101. The reason is because there is no need

    Apart from the scores of mass shootings creating hundreds of victims where the semi auto weapon has been the shooter’s preferred murder tool you mean?

    Pat, tell me, apart from the exceptions what practical purpose does a semi auto pistol or military style AR 15 semi auto long barrel being kept at home serve?

  102. Phantom, on August 18th, 2019 at 11:48 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The Sentencing isn’t the core of the problem

    The promiscuous Distribution of guns in this society is the problem

    Many criminals and mass murderers Never been convicted of a crime before

    Wrong 90% of the major crime is committed by only 10% of the criminal population… habitual offenders… sentencing is everything. And mandatory gun sentencing is key to taking that population off the streets permanently.

    That and that alone is what will end the gun violence in Philly, Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Camden Baltimore etc etc

    They won’t enforce those Laws because THEY’RE RACIST….

    Lock up the animals after that come talk to me about Law abiding citizens guns.

  103. The mass murderers in America tend to be ( white, male ) loners with no criminal background at all

    The Sandy Hook shooter had no criminal record, neither did the pulse nightclub killer in Orlando. The latter guy had been employed as a security guard at a courthouse

    https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/americas-mass-killers-little-criminal-history-share-characteristics/

  104. that’s where the nut houses come in……

  105. We need to totally revamp mental health in this country

  106. It really is a shame, but we have to keep certain people who exhibit certain behavior behind bars.

    Though those that need to be kept fall into two categories… criminal and insane. We do a lousy job with both and the society as a whole pays for it with the violence, but punishing the Lawful and the Sane is not the answer.

  107. There was zero evidence that the pulse nightclub shooter was insane

    There was zero evidence that many other mass murderers in America were insane, or That they broke the law previously

  108. Most countries have criminals. Most countries have people with mental health problems. Most countries have violent video games. Most countries have pretty much every other nonsense excuse the gun lobby comes up with. Most countries don’t have the easy availability of guns. That is why their gun crime is much lower than the US. Not criminals, crazies or Call of Duty. Guns.

  109. the pulse nightclub has a ton of weird abnormalities about it… I wouldn’t mention that one around Allan.

    Phantom you’re never going to fully stop crazy, it can’t be done.

    We can surely improve on it… but nothing can catch some of them even serial killers like BTK they float among us….. and sometimes you don’t catch them until the bodies start popping up.

  110. but Seamus…. it doesn’t matter what most countries do or don’t have or do…. We have more guns than people and we will not turn them in and they will never try to collect them.

    So do we ignore the problem or do what we can with the people who don’t follow the rules ?

  111. Seamus, on August 18th, 2019 at 11:37 PM Said:

    America, in most ways, is not comparable to Brazil, Mexico etc…

    You’ll find that it is…….increasingly so.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/bakersfield-shooting-gunman-victims.html

    The authorities here blame the increase in the murder rate on killings involving gangs and drugs — part of the county is a border between two rival gang territories, said Lt. Mark King with the sheriff’s department.

    I don’t believe that the US becoming Mexico is anything to celebrate. In those states in the US with highest levels of blacks and hispanics, murder and gun crime flourishes. The cities of the US are becoming uninhabitable to whites who are leaving whenever they can get away. Those who don’t deserve their end…….

    https://www.niche.com/k12/new-rochelle-high-school-new-rochelle-ny/students/

    Student Diversity

    Hispanic – 45.5%
    White – 25.4%
    African American – 24.7%
    Asian – 3.8%

    This is a school in New York: not even Paris has figures like that. But why this school?

    https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/08/07/new-rochelle-high-school-student-stabbed-sentencing/

    Valaree Schwab was 16 when she was stabbed to death in the New Rochelle Business District near the high school. The incident happened on Jan. 10, 2018, a school day, during an hour-long off-campus dispute between two groups of students.

    https://news12wc.images.worldnow.com/images/16556377_G.jpg?lastEditedDate=20180417070505

    “Z’Inah Brown, I hope you figure out a way to bear your burden, because ours is heavier each day,” Brittney Schwab said.

    And what burden would that be, Brittney?

    The fact that you sent your daughter to a zoo that’s literally 75% non-white?

    It’s so fantastic being the white minority.

    Bear in mind that Texas is soon to be majority hispanic, just like California. California used to provide Republican presidents – now it’s a shithole turning into Mexico:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California

    In 2015, California had the largest ethnic/racial minority population in the United States. Non-Hispanic whites decreased from about 76.3 – 78% of the state’s population in 1970[20] to 38.0% in 2015.

    Those are figures representative of Mexico and Brazil – the future of the US

  112. “We have more guns than people and we will not turn them in and they will never try to collect them.”

    Why not? Seems like the sensible thing to do. And it has worked in other countries.

  113. I don’t think that all these mass murderers are crazy

    They are all evil, I don’t think that makes them crazy

  114. Why not? because they won’t keep the animals locked up…. the risk is too high.

    Seems like the sensible thing to do. And it has worked in other countries. won’t happen here.

  115. Phantom, on August 19th, 2019 at 12:41 AM Said: Edit Comment
    I don’t think that all these mass murderers are crazy

    They are all evil, I don’t think that makes them crazy

    How do you detect evil… ?

    shit half the people on this site don’t believe in good and evil… I do, but other than exhibited behavior which would be classified as either criminal or insane how would you detect it….

  116. “won’t happen here.”

    Because of wannabe terrorists like yourself? And your treacherous military (your perception of them anyway)?

  117. your nutz…..

    I’m a law abiding citizen and our military are the best in the world….

  118. You have said that you would engage in political violence should the government take your guns. You have also said the armed forces would mutiny rather than face down your band of terrorists.

  119. He has evaded a pretty simple question all day long

    The treasonous fake patriot types would start shooting people but he has no idea who those targets would be!

    If I thought that I would be taking up arms against somebody. At some point I think I have some idea of who that might be

  120. If the health system in your country is failing it’s citizens in terms of their mental health provision, how could you morally allow that citizenry the level of access that you, for example, have to guns? (For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that you are an average American)

  121. The guns were here first…. we used to be able to lock crazy people up we stopped and threw them on the streets in 1980….

  122. and addiction is a mental disease also, and when you add the insane with the addicted you get San Francisco….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFTjxAXCYA

  123. De- institutionalization started in the fifties, And rapidly accelerated in the 60s and 70s, continuiing after that

    The rate of institutionalization is 95% less than in the mid twentieth century. This is bad for everybody, especially for the mentally Ill and their families

    But a proper asylum Isn’t just a place where you lock up people that are troublesome for the larger society. It’s a Place where they get treatment and care. Health care. With doctors and nurses as needed. And you have said 1000 times that there is no legitimate government role for healthcare

    Re institutionalization would be expensive and it Would be a big expansion of government healthcare. I support it

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/should-the-us-bring-back-psychiatric-asylums/384838/

  124. This is not a right but it’s human decency. It needs to be done and it can only be paid for by the Federal Government because it’s nationwide it needs to be strictly monitored so that they do help people. It can’t be left to states and cities to monitor.

  125. good article

  126. We have more guns than people and we will not turn them in and they will never try to collect them.

    If your ultimate argument is ‘we are swamped with guns and if you try to limit out access to them we will turn them on you’ then this discussion is absolutely pointless. If your answer to logical argument is ‘try and take our illegal guns and we will kill you’ then the logical argument has no match to the threat of violence.

    But know this, the next time that someone decides to blow away a bucket load of innocents, (and it will happen again), it was your refusal to limit access to such weapons which enabled it

    .

  127. half the people on this site don’t believe in good and evil

    Patrick – surely there’s a spectrum, just like gender. And that statement of yours shows you to be an evilophobe. Doing evil can be great fun – destroying countries and the people of those countries whilst telling them that nothing is happening is clearly enjoyable to those who are going about that business, a business, just like starting wars – fantastic fun to those who are involved.

  128. First off good morning/afternoon everyone

    If your ultimate argument is ‘we are swamped with guns and if you try to limit out access to them we will turn them on you’ then this discussion is absolutely pointless. If your answer to logical argument is ‘try and take our illegal guns and we will kill you’ then the logical argument has no match to the threat of violence.

    But know this, the next time that someone decides to blow away a bucket load of innocents, (and it will happen again), it was your refusal to limit access to such weapons which enabled it

    Ahhh so many eyes to open and so little time left…. I shall endeavor to persevere…

    If your ultimate argument is ‘we are swamped with guns and if you try to limit out access to them we will turn them on you’ then this discussion is absolutely pointless

    BINGO….. There is a Flor Dominicana waiting for you…. The argument is pointless… but it still happens every high profile shooting.

    If your answer to logical argument is ‘try and take our illegal guns and we will kill you’ then the logical argument has no match to the threat of violence.

    I find this one curious…. Our Guns aren’t Illegal so I guess we are playing the “if” game. So I will answer it under your premise…. but it might set some people off… AND THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL scenario….

    Honestly Paul this I don’t think you understand…. If they tried to seize the guns civil war would break out… If they started going house to house to collect them there would be violence…. It is not a threat or a call to violence it is just reality.

    It is the only situation that can and would cause a civil war….

    There are over 500 Million Firearms in the civilian population… 300 million Legal, 200 Million Illegal.

    The government Federal, State, and Local can’t get control of the 200 million firearms in the hands of the Criminals…. and until they do they’ll never get reason from those that posses the other 300 million, and if they try force what will follow will be a bloodbath the likes the world has never seen.

    Every high profile shooting this conversation happens here in the states… The Anti-Gunners start pushing to solve the problem by seizing/limiting the guns… then the legal gun owners start to argue back…. everytime it’s the same thing… It’s a Dance.

    One that always ends with the anti-Gunner left weeping on the dance floor heartbroken…

  129. BINGO….. There is a Flor Dominicana waiting for you…. The argument is pointless…

    Then why do you insist on making it? Instead of the fig leaves and shibboleths you employ when this discussion arises it would be much more honest for you to say that you want to keep your semi autos regardless of the carnage and death they enable instead of hiding behind faux arguments of protection and armed terrorism rebellion against a democraticaly elected government.

    I find this one curious…. Our Guns aren’t Illegal so I guess we are playing the “if” game. So I will answer it under your premise…. but it might set some people off… AND THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL scenario….

    Don’t find it curious. If I have a flamethrower at home is it right for me to turn it against state forces when they come to seize it from me? Were government to outlaw semi auto long barrels would it be right for their illegal owners to turn them on state forces when they come to confiscate them?

    I can think of absolutely no practical purpose whatsoever does having a semi auto pistol or military style AR 15 semi auto long barrel at home serve bar some kind of big dick macho Rambo secret soldier fantasy yet you are yours still refuse to listen to logic and reason for limiting access to your deadly playthings, the preferred tool of mass murderers. The next time that someone decides to blow away a bucket load of innocents, (and it will happen again), it was your and yours refusal to limit access to such weapons which enabled it.

  130. Seamus,

    Why not? Ban all self-reloading firearms. Why not do it?

    Totally agree Seamus. Why would the general public need self reloading firearms.
    I mean you’re not allowed to buy anti personnel mines and rocket launchers, so I can’t understand why they are allowed to buy these weapons that can kill huge numbers of people very quickly.

  131. I can kill more people faster with a shotgun than someone can with a .45

  132. I can kill more people faster with a shotgun than someone can with a .45

    Interesting comment. Unless you’ve ever killed people with a shotgun and / or 45 what’s your benchmark of comparison?

    That’s what I said about limiting personal / home protection to .38 or .357 revolvers.

    It would be much more honest for you to say that you want to keep your semi autos regardless of the carnage and death they enable instead of hiding behind faux arguments of protection and armed terrorism rebellion against a democraticaly elected government […]

    I can think of absolutely no practical purpose whatsoever does having a semi auto pistol or military style AR 15 semi auto long barrel at home serve bar some kind of big dick macho Rambo secret soldier fantasy yet you are yours still refuse to listen to logic and reason for limiting access to your deadly playthings, the preferred tool of mass murderers. The next time that someone decides to blow away a bucket load of innocents, (and it will happen again), it was your and yours refusal to limit access to such weapons which enabled it.

    Then there’s that too.

  133. You never know when 100 bloods, crips or terrorists come storming into your house.

  134. Seimi, on August 19th, 2019 at 2:30 AM Said:

    If the health system in your country is failing it’s citizens in terms of their mental health provision, how could you morally allow that citizenry the level of access that you, for example, have to guns? (For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that you are an average American)

    Patrick Van Roy, on August 19th, 2019 at 3:23 AM Said:

    The guns were here first…. we used to be able to lock crazy people up we stopped and threw them on the streets in 1980….

    Are you suggesting that guns preceded mental health issues??
    Your argument seems to be that people with mental health issues used to be locked up in institutions, where they couldn’t purchase guns, but after 1980, you stopped locking people with mental health issues up, thus giving them the opportunity to purchase guns. This is a ridiculous argument. How about having a two-pronged approach in this instance: look after the mentally unwell in your society properly, instead of just locking them up, which is barbaric, and secondly, restrict the ownership of guns to low-calibre revolvers and shotguns/long-barrelled guns for hunting, and then only after rigorous vetting procedures and at least some kind of waiting period while all vetting forms are checked and double-checked?
    And are you really suggesting that taking away someone’s right to freedom is less important than their right to own a firearm??

    Here’s another question:
    You keep saying that if the government try to take your guns away, there will be ‘civil war.’ You also claim that the US Army will not take up arms against its own citizens. So who is it exactly who will go ‘house to house’ to take away the guns? The cops? How will that sit with you, with your family’s history with the police? Will you at that point agree with shooting cops who are only upholding the law?
    Or will the army be in a position where they will be forced to go ‘house to house,’ before deciding that they won’t shoot their own people, thereby becoming traitors to their own government? And at that point, will the ‘well trained militia’ suddenly rise? Who will have trained them? Are they currently training, and by training, I mean training as military units, not going out at the weekend to shoot clay pigeons, because I’m pretty sure the US government will send in troops armed with a bit more than crockery.

  135. The 1980 date isn’t correct.

    De-institutionalization started well before then.

  136. Interesting comment. Unless you’ve ever killed people with a shotgun and / or 45 what’s your benchmark of comparison?

    You’ve never done live fire combat drills….. it’s a blast…..

    That’s what I said about limiting personal / home protection to .38 or .357 revolvers. not enough firepower…. a shotgun is a must a Greener is the best choice.

    You never know when 100 bloods, crips or terrorists come storming into your house.

    You want a list of home invasions…… there isn’t enough space on this site to list them.

    I could fill pages just listing them from any one major city….

  137. Are you suggesting that guns preceded mental health issues??
    Your argument seems to be that people with mental health issues used to be locked up in institutions, where they couldn’t purchase guns, but after 1980, you stopped locking people with mental health issues up, thus giving them the opportunity to purchase guns. This is a ridiculous argument.

    yes it is, it is also not the argument I am making.

    instead of just locking them up, which is barbaric, and secondly, restrict the ownership of guns to low-calibre revolvers and shotguns/long-barrelled guns for hunting, and then only after rigorous vetting procedures and at least some kind of waiting period while all vetting forms are checked and double-checked?

    The only guns that should be restricted to law abiding citizens are REAL military weapons, and they already are… you can’t buy a machine gun, bazooka, or a tank… Waiting periods already exist in some areas and it hasn’t made a statistical difference in gun crime one way or another.

    second half of your questions to follow.

  138. Why should “real” military be restricted? I do see how you reconcile such a restriction with your other arguments.

  139. The gentleman in the post is only in a majority if you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

  140. Here’s another question:
    You keep saying that if the government try to take your guns away, there will be ‘civil war.’ You also claim that the US Army will not take up arms against its own citizens. So who is it exactly who will go ‘house to house’ to take away the guns? The cops? How will that sit with you, with your family’s history with the police? Will you at that point agree with shooting cops who are only upholding the law?
    Or will the army be in a position where they will be forced to go ‘house to house,’ before deciding that they won’t shoot their own people, thereby becoming traitors to their own government? And at that point, will the ‘well trained militia’ suddenly rise? Who will have trained them? Are they currently training, and by training, I mean training as military units, not going out at the weekend to shoot clay pigeons, because I’m pretty sure the US government will send in troops armed with a bit more than crockery.

    This is a long stroll through the looking glass you do know that don’t you…. ?

    So I guess you want me to pretend it would ever reach the ridiculous point you paint….

    Okay first and foremost the scenarios you paint can never happen…. it is a fantasy of IF… If the dog didn’t stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit….

    But I’ll play….

    They would use the military, the local police wouldn’t be trusted. The military would be on internal lockdown due to desertions and sabotage, but the level of fear that would be consuming the country would keep the majority in line following orders whether they liked them or not and soldiers would be assigned to regions of the country where they had no family ties.

    Whoe’d fight them the first thing you’re missing is long before the military would be pressed into seizing the weapons blood will have already been spilt and whose training them….. yada yada yada….

    Oh my… first the easiest piece for you to understand the united states has been at war nonstop for 20yrs there are a couple 100 thousand with military combat in the civilian population.

    Then there is the population that hold 200 million of the 500… the urban guerilla. What they lack in training they make up for with balls and fire power. Perfect example Philly just a few days ago… one drug dealer shot 6 cops and tied up 100 for 5hrs. Times him by at least a million.

    Do you think they will turn their weapons in or fight…. I witnessed this scenario firsthand…. it took dropping a bomb on them and burning an entire city block down and that was in peace time… how do you think they’d act while at war… ?

    Then there are the rednecks…. these people are like the taliban except even better at disappearing before and after an engagement. This is the group our military groom our special forces from.

    The body tole would be worse than the first civil war… the violence would make the ME look like a vacation spot…..

    What you fantasize is armageddon…

    This however will NEVER happen, it will never reach that point. This is the mass shooting dance. A uniquely american ritual that we go through to process our grief. Nothing more.

    Nothing will change. and we will go through the exact same dance after the next shooting.

    Think about the logic of your fantasy…. 10-20-30 people get killed by some loon with gun so the solution is a process that would result in millions dead and entire areas of the country destroyed by war…. nope sorry there is no logic in it.

  141. Mahons, on August 19th, 2019 at 6:36 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The gentleman in the post is only in a majority if you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

    He said and I quote… “I am the majority… A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN”

    are Law Abiding Citizens not the majority ?

    You really must learn to listen….

  142. Mahons, on August 19th, 2019 at 6:33 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Why should “real” military be restricted? I do see how you reconcile such a restriction with your other arguments.

    Mahons it’s called common sense….. and the Laws to prevent people from owning real military weapons were written in response to Organized Crime Violence of the 20s…. and was a set of Laws pushed into place BY LAW ENFORCEMENT to keep the violence manageable.

  143. PaTroll,
    This is not my ‘fantasy’. Believe me, I don’t any part of it fantastic. I’m merely pulling out the thread of your assertion that US soldiers will not go up against an armed, civilian militia.
    By your own admission above, and this is all about ‘ifs’, IF the US army are ordered to do this, they will, and IF they do, those armed militia will shoot them. An unelected, unregulated army, made up of a minority with a n your country, opening fire on the army of that country to resist the law laid down by the elected government of that country? . That is terrorism, by your, mine and anyone else’s definition. And you are fine with that.
    Your ex-army buddies must love you.

  144. He may very well be a law abiding citizen which would put clearly put him in the majority from a behavior standpoint. But you seemed to also imply he is in a majority if he opposes gun control, in which he would be in a significant minority.

  145. You are logically inconsistent in suggesting some arbitrary line as to military weapons. If common sense is the standard then the line can be drawn elsewhere.

  146. Why is it guys who want to play cowboy with guns have a greater right than a person’s right to live? That is morally wrong. A person’s right to life should always be greater than a guy’s right to own a gun. We know if there were no guns there would not be gun deaths. The morally right thing to do is get rid of all guns. If it saves even one life, it is worth whatever it takes. The 2nd amendment is not one of the ten commandments.

  147. I am the majority… A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN

    As I explained last night, he’s a gun owner and opposed to restrictions of firearms ownership. That makes him a minority.

    Mahons it’s called common sense….. and the Laws to prevent people from owning real military weapons

    I’m going to try this ‘common sense’ approach again:

    I can think of absolutely no practical purpose whatsoever does having a semi auto pistol or military style AR 15 semi auto long barrel at home serve bar some kind of big dick macho Rambo secret soldier fantasy yet you are yours still refuse to listen to logic and reason for limiting access to your deadly playthings, the preferred tool of mass murderers. The next time that someone decides to blow away a bucket load of innocents, (and it will happen again), it was your and yours refusal to limit access to such weapons which enabled it.

    Can you give me a practical, ‘common sense’ reason why anyone would need a semi auto pistol or military style AR 15 semi auto long barrel at home?

  148. Let answer Mahons first…

    Mahons, on August 19th, 2019 at 7:54 PM Said: Edit Comment
    He may very well be a law abiding citizen which would put clearly put him in the majority from a behavior standpoint. But you seemed to also imply he is in a majority if he opposes gun control, in which he would be in a significant minority.

    Mahons, on August 19th, 2019 at 7:57 PM Said: Edit Comment
    You are logically inconsistent in suggesting some arbitrary line as to military weapons. If common sense is the standard then the line can be drawn elsewhere.

    No if you got that implication it was from a side conversation in the begining with Paul and it had to do with where the 1% that enlist and the less than 1% that serve in blue.

    Common sense was the standard at the time the gun restrictions were in place and it was drawn at the perfect spot.

    No Automatic Weapons the line was Drawn purposefully right under the Thompson Submachine Gun…. on up, and there is no reason to change it in any way.

  149. I didn’t focus on your conversation with Paul. How is 1% a majority?

    So Thompson ban on constitutionally but other gun control not. By your own arguments you are wrong.

  150. Unless you’ve ever killed people with a shotgun and / or 45 what’s your benchmark of comparison?

    Paul – what is the benchmark for your friends?

  151. I always enjoy NYrs comments.

    New Yorker, on August 19th, 2019 at 9:18 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Why is it guys who want to play cowboy with guns have a greater right than a person’s right to live? That is morally wrong. A person’s right to life should always be greater than a guy’s right to own a gun. We know if there were no guns there would not be gun deaths. The morally right thing to do is get rid of all guns. If it saves even one life, it is worth whatever it takes. The 2nd amendment is not one of the ten commandments.

    I say this with the utmost respect. What kind of drugs are you taking ? Did you fall and smack your head or is this a sudden onset of some sort of new mental disorder ?

    Why is it guys who want to play cowboy with guns have a greater right than a person’s right to live? That is morally wrong

    How are the people you say are playing Cowboy effecting anyone’s right to live ? What’s morally wrong about owning a gun ?

    A person’s right to life should always be greater than a guy’s right to own a gun.

    It is, how does my owning a gun effect that in any way ?

    We know if there were no guns there would not be gun deaths. The morally right thing to do is get rid of all guns.

    London passed NYC in Murders with KNIVES….

    London murder rate overtakes New York’s – BBC News
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936
    Mar 27, 2018 · London murder rate overtakes New York’s.

    What you think our animals won’t use knives ?

    The morally right thing to do is get rid of all guns. If it saves even one life, it is worth whatever it takes. The 2nd amendment is not one of the ten commandments.

    Kiss my ass with your morally right thing….. It doesn’t match the morality of 100 Million Law Abiding Americans who cling to their Bibles and Guns… What gives you the right to dictate someone else morality… do you even go to Church ?

    EVERY whiney emotional cry me a river metro sexual platitude that could be spouted… my god go get your T level checked.

    Law Abiding gun owners ARE NOT THE PROBLEM the animals roaming the streets are the problem and the scumbags you elect that Protect them are the problem… You want to punish LAW ABIDING AMERICANS for violence committed by criminals and the crazy…

    The Government of your city REFUSES to prosecute the Federal Mandatory Gun Laws, YOUR city Government releases ILLEGALS back into the population that have arm length rap sheets to prey on you because they deserve SANCTUARY in their view more than any risk they pose to your life….

    Why don’t you take your sanctimonious ass down to City Hall and protest DeBlasio for not following Federal Law….

    You want to attack the Law Abiding while you shrug and do NOTHING about the criminal animals wandering your streets….

  152. Mahons, on August 19th, 2019 at 11:50 PM Said: Edit Comment
    I didn’t focus on your conversation with Paul. How is 1% a majority?

    So Thompson ban on constitutionally but other gun control not. By your own arguments you are wrong.

    Mahons that makes no sense…. I draw the line at real military weapons…. but you advocate the banning of guns that LOOK like military weapons….

    You say my saying real military weapons don’t belong in the public’s hands is a bad thing… that’s how you are acting…

    I’m a responsible gun owner, I’m a firearms safety instructor, I’m a responsible gun owner.

    After the prohibition wars the Police, the Feds, the NRA, and Gun Manufacturers compromised and these restrictions were drawn…. isn’t that the reasonable behavior you are advocating ?

    Come back when you want to display some logic please.

  153. Slave owners were law abiding at one time, then we fought a war and slave owning was illegal. Things that are legal now can be made illegal. If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. You want to play cowboy using guns which is presently legal but that also means it is legal for another guy to buy assault weapons and kill dozens. Your right to play cowboy with guns is not greater that the right of dozens to live. The moral argument against guns is unassailable, you just want to avoid it so you can play cowboy. The 2nd amendment is not one of the ten commandments.

  154. Guns —are— the problem

    Keeping a loaded gun in a house increases the odds that a member of the house will die a violent death- by homicide, suicide, or by accident.

    https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

    America has about twice the suicide rate that the UK does, and very many of those are by means of firearms, a quick “:solution “ to a perhaps momentary despair of a family member.

    Keeping a loaded gun in the house means that there is a greater chance someone shooting a neighbor And event of a dispute

    Criminals aren’t the whole problem. They’re not even half the problem.

    Anyone notice that the gun fanatics never ever bring up the subject of suicide by gun?

  155. And see this – suicide rate by state. There is an absolute corellation between the rate of going ownership and rate of suicide

    Highest suicide rates are in Montana and Alaska, the lowest suicide rates are in New Jersey and New York.

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/us-states-ranked-by-suicide-rate.html

  156. Rates of —Gun ownership —

  157. But you advocate the banning of guns that LOOK like military weapons….

    As would I. There is no logical or pracrical that someone needs an AR15 Bushwhacker semi auto military style rifle at home. As a matter of fact, exceptions excluded, there is no practical or logical reason for anyone to have a semi auto pistol at all at home.

    Paul – what is the benchmark for your friends?

    The offer’s still open for you to meet former prisoners in Belfast. You could ask them yourself, political chickenhawk.

  158. The offer’s still open for you to meet former prisoners in Belfast. You could ask them yourself, political chickenhawk.

    Sure – I’m going to go over to Belfast to meet a criminal class who want to turn Ireland into Nigeria because they’re ‘nationalists’: absolute, perfect sense – but only in that sordid world. You stick to your world for I want none of that in mine. But, given that you cite them in support of your ‘authenticity’, what are their prefered weapons for domestic and social (pubs, clubs etc) killings? Would a handgun in the house be sufficient protect against your friends?

  159. Patrick

    This is Patrick’s response to an excellent, well thought out post by New Yorker.

    //I say this with the utmost respect. What kind of drugs are you taking ? Did you fall and smack your head or is this a sudden onset of some sort of new mental disorder ?//

    You always know you’ve made a good point, when Patrick becomes insulting.

  160. Of course you’re not, you proved that previously when called out on your ‘did IRA volunteers die for blah, blah, blah attempted racial propaganda bollocks I offered to facilitate a meeting with former IRA prisoners in Belfast for you to put your claims to them directly and your balls immediately fell off and ‘IRA volunteers’ suddenly became those from ‘sink estates’ and a ‘criminal class’.

    No only that but your racal convictions are that strong that when one of the most civil, mild – mannered, reasonable commentators on this forum suggested meeting you for a coffee in your home city your bravado immediately disappeared again when you cravenly refused to meet him, suggesting that you’d be ‘ill’ on the day he suggested. You’re a gutless, ball-less chickenhawk, someone whose conviction of ideaology extends to punting ridiculous conspiracies from the safe anonymity of the bunker and vicariously advocating the race war by remote control, (which others will of course naturally fight).

    As for pub & club murders, I’m sure that some of your fellow Rangers supporters are also ardent loyalist sectarian murder machine supporters. Next time you’re watching a Rangers match with them you should ask them as bombing and ‘spraying’ pubs, clubs & bookies etc was a loyalist speciality.

  161. Is Allan a Unionist?

    Serious question.

    I seem to recall him being fine at one time with the prospect of Scotland being independent

  162. I wish I was there I’d love to have a conversation with them.

  163. Dave I pounded on NYr because I was shocked that a person who usually talks intelligently would post something so stupid in my view.

  164. Wanting to ban all guns is not realistic and not even desirable.

  165. It may not be realistic, or even desirable (there are certain legitimate reasons for an individual to own a gun). But it is more desirable than the current system. The current proliferation of guns is far less desirable than a situation where no one could own a gun ever.

    That being said I would support reasonable restrictions but still legalised gun ownership.

    As I’ve said before there needs to be a ban on all self reloading weaponry. There should be legal standards that one has to meet before you can own a weapon (including gun safety classes, tests, safe securing practices etc…).

    For example, in Northern Ireland in order to own a gun you must have a legitimate reason to own one (hunter, farmer, personal protection weapon etc…). The gun must also be relevant to that legitimate reason (a farmer can own a shotgun, he can’t own an Uzi). Not everyone can have a PPW either (they must have legitimate grounds for having one). There are bans in place for certain people (based on criminal record or medial information). They must pay for, and have regularly inspected (also at their expense), a proper gun cabinet for the safe securing of all weapons they own. And it is also an on-going process. A person doesn’t just get a certificate for use and that is the end of it. It is a repeating process.

    It should just be a fundamental aspect of common sense that it shouldn’t be easier to own a gun than a car.

  166. I’d settle for the Canadian system.

    What we have now is no real controls at all, because there are gaps in it everywhere you look.

    I could buy a pistol legally this weekend without undergoing any background check or even revealing my identity. ( In Virginia, not that far away from me )

    I won’t do it, but I could.

  167. I don’t think Allan is a Unionist, certainly not a Loyalist. He has never said anything remotely sectarian.

    Paul, maybe someone could arrange a meeting between Patrick and some members of this nice family…….

    The victim of the shooting in Co Down on Monday night has been named locally as Malcolm McKeown, a well-known career criminal with loyalist paramilitary connections.

    All three (men in his family) were closely connected with the LVF leader Billy Wright, known as King Rat,

    Malcolm McKeown faced trial in 2012 charged with the murders the previous year of Hugh McGeough and his wife Jacqueline in Co Armagh.

    His brother Clifford McKeown was convicted of the murder of Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick in Lurgan, who was shot dead during the Drumcree Orange Order parade standoff near Portadown in July 1996. His trial heard that Clifford McKeown described the murder as a “birthday present” for Billy Wright.

    Clifford McKeown had spoken of an initial plan by Wright to abduct and murder three Catholic priests but that this plan was abandoned because Wright feared the IRA would kill Protestant clergymen in retaliation.

    His other brother Trevor McKeown was convicted of the 1997 murder of 18-year-old Catholic girl Bernadette Martin. She was shot four times in the head at point-blank range as she lay sleeping with her Protestant boyfriend at his family home in Aghalee in Co Armagh.

  168. New Yorker, on August 20th, 2019 at 12:33 AM Said: Edit Comment
    Slave owners were law abiding at one time, then we fought a war and slave owning was illegal. Things that are legal now can be made illegal. If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. You want to play cowboy using guns which is presently legal but that also means it is legal for another guy to buy assault weapons and kill dozens. Your right to play cowboy with guns is not greater that the right of dozens to live. The moral argument against guns is unassailable, you just want to avoid it so you can play cowboy. The 2nd amendment is not one of the ten commandments.

    You now compare gun owners to slave owners….. do you really want to make that argument Ok you say I don’t want to debate… Lets debate

    First I will go through your statement and then add my own….

    Slave owners were law abiding at one time, then we fought a war and slave owning was illegal. Things that are legal now can be made illegal.

    This part of your comment is pure emotion, nothing of reason even worth commenting on. You just called 100 million Law Abiding people the moral equivalent of Slavers… What kind of reach in your mind can even make that connection except that you want to justify your call to civil war. You know if they try to take Legal gun owners guns it would cause a civil war and you think that’s OK because gun owners are the same as slave owners…. Stop calling for war and owning a gun is not the same as owning a slave.

    In your comparison NYr the slave owners those fighting FOR slavery would be YOU and the anti-gun crowd. You want to fight a war to take away a Law Abiding Citizens right to defend themselves and make them a slave to your will because you don’t like guns. Shame on you.

    If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.

    If the dog didn’t stop to crap he would’ve caught the rabbit… there are over 700 Million guns in civilian hands in the US your IF ship sailed 243yrs ago. The guns are here and they aren’t going away…. so if is a fantasy… next

    You want to play cowboy using guns which is presently legal but that also means it is legal for another guy to buy assault weapons and kill dozens.

    Number 1 I don’t play cowboy… I don’t do cowboy shoots, Cowboy Shooting is a whole category of Firearm competition.

    SASS – Home of Cowboy Action Shooting
    https://www.sassnet.com
    The Single Action Shooting Society was created to preserve and promote the sport of Cowboy Action Shooting. SASS members share a common interest in preserving the history of the Old West and competitive shooting.

    I don’t belong to that group…. I shoot two types of competition Steal Shoots and Skeet.

    But the Primary reason I have Firearms is protection. Carrying my handgun has saved my life 3 times without ever firing a shot. And millions of Law abiding people every year save their own lives with a gun. It doesn’t make the news because it doesn’t fit the narrative, there is however a show called Cam and Co. that does a segment called Hero and Heal of the Day. Each day he reads 2 stories one where a person legally carrying a gun saved themselves or someone else and a story where some animal got let off or out that shouldn’t have. I could post one of these everyday.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiuLSIHsjHA

    And buy assault weapons and kill dozens… anyone can buy multiple things that can kill dozens. A person can rent a truck and drive down the sidewalks of NYC and kill dozens just as quick as he could a gun.

    The moral argument against guns is unassailable, you just want to avoid it so you can play cowboy. The 2nd amendment is not one of the ten commandments.

    The moral argument…. What morality is that ? The morality that allows our city to go easy on criminals while they punish the Law Abiding… that is the morality you push.

    The government refuses to control the criminals and ignores the crazies, instead they focus on punishing the Law abiding… How is that moral ?

    so please NYr when you reply explain to me the morality of rewarding the criminal by not charging them with the federal gun laws but punishing the Law Abiding by taking away their guns. I really want to see you justify that.

  169. Is Allan a Unionist?

    I don’t know, his political narrative changes with the weather and whatever particular bollocks he’s trying to spin at any given moment.

    He did however once admit to being a Glasgow Rangers supporter and as many Rangers fans are vehemently supportive of the loyalist sectarian mass murder machine I advised him to ask his fellow supporters about loyalist attacks on bars, clubs and bookies in that context.

  170. Here Ladies and gentleman is a plain flat out LIE or an unintentional reveal of how totally ignorant on the subject Phantom is…. I don’t believe Phantom is intentionally lying I just think he’s stupid….

    I could buy a pistol legally this weekend without undergoing any background check or even revealing my identity. ( In Virginia, not that far away from me )

    NO YOU CAN’T…… It is FEDERAL LAW no FFL can sell ANY Firearm without running a background check.

    Now if you want to go to Harlem or the Bronx and buy one off of a local drug dealer, sure you can buy a stolen gun from a criminal without a background check…. but there is no state, no store, no legal gun dealer ANYWHERE in the United States where you can purchase a firearm without a background check.

  171. You may want to stop using the word lie.

    You are wrong.

    I could buy a pistol in a ” private sale ” in Virginia from a private individual ( not a registered dealer ) without undergoing any background check.

    It happens every day.

    You yourself a few days ago spoke of private transfers of guns including gifts in situations where no background check would be done, and where you don’t want there to be a requirement that background checks are done.

  172. You can do that in most states Phantom….. you don’t have to go to Va. A private sale background check is unenforceable….

    You did Lie… you spun the truth to make it sound like in Virginia you could buy a gun from a Licensed seller without a background check…. that was your spin and it’s a LIE.

    In Pa I could by Law sell you one of my personal rifles without a background check, but not a handgun…. Is it enforceable NO, but the Law is there.

  173. Everything that I have said was and is 100% correct

    I have this out before in detail

    You were wrong

    Your humble apology is accepted

  174. I have spelled this out

    Gun show loophole, etc etc

  175. and you’re wrong

  176. here is a good chart showing the media spin

    https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-in-USA-vs.-media-coverage.png

  177. The left scream there is a “Loophole” that because a family member can give a gun to another family member or when dad dies his wife or kids get their firearms they want that to be illegal.

    It’s the same with one civilian selling another civilian their weapons…. neither person nor a family member are Licensed Firearms sellers so they in most states are not required to do so. In NY and Pa they are.

    This Law in unenforceable, the only way to enforce it is a nationwide Firearm Registration.

    Good Luck

  178. //Phantom, on August 20th, 2019 at 2:03 PM Said:

    I could buy a pistol legally this weekend without undergoing any background check or even revealing my identity. ( In Virginia, not that far away from me). //

    So, let’s see……

    “BACKGROUND CHECKS IN VIRGINIA

    Virginia does not require “private” sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm.”

    https://lawcenter.giffords.org/background-checks-in-virginia/

  179. Busted flat in Baton Rouge!

  180. I made this point years ago here, and offered to make a large cash wager that I could go to Virginia and legally buy a pistol for cash without revealing my identity. The wager offer was declined.

    Some of us scream and roar and divert, others do the research. There aren’t two sides to this one.

  181. once again most state and on the federal level there is no restriction on “Private Sales” it’s unenforceable and requires that all guns be registered.

    I’ll tell you what get Congress to pass Universal Firearm Registration, if they pass it I’ll support background checks for when a father gives his son a gun for christmas.

    So tell me Phantom why don’t we have universal registration…?

  182. So we agree that I could buy a gun in Virginia without undergoing a background check?

    Thank me very much.

  183. Carrying my handgun has saved my life 3 times without ever firing a shot. And millions of Law abiding people every year save their own lives with a gun.

    I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that you can’t have a home / personal protection pistol, what they are alluding to is the kind of protection weapon you have:

    There is no logical or pracrical that someone needs an AR15 Bushwhacker semi auto military style rifle at home. As a matter of fact, exceptions excluded, there is no practical or logical reason for anyone to have a semi auto pistol at all at home.

    (or on their person)

    This is a point that you have consistently ignored throughout this thread.

  184. //once again most state and on the federal level there is no restriction on “Private Sales” it’s unenforceable //

    But, Patrick, I think that was the point Phantom was making.

    IT IS FAR TOO EASY FOR ANYONE, INCLUDING CRIMINALS, TO GET A GUN IN MOST PLACES IN THE US.

    Why should a criminal, or anyone looking for an easy unbureaucratic gun purchase, go to a dealer and subject himself to background checks etc. when he can get a firearm more easily, and probably cheaper, from a private person.

    What you write here now just confirms that.

  185. This is a point that you have consistently ignored throughout this thread.

    I’ve ignored it because it’s ridiculous.

    An AR-15 that you can buy in any gun store is just an ugly deer rifle, it gives no advantage in rate of fire or firepower…. I don’t own one, and never would… when I sold in a store I used to refer to the rack with those rifles as “Peck Guns”…. because guys who bought them in my view had issues with the size of their pecker…. but hey if that’s what they wanted why not ? It’s no different than any other deer rifle except in looks.

    As for semi-auto handguns…. as I said earlier all police and military use a standard 9mm, a semi-auto. The majority never fired a revolver and are therefore not proficient with the weapon. It feels completely different in your hand and in the way you shoot it.

    over 90% of guns are semi auto, a semi-auto shoots the same as a revolver. One pull on the trigger fires one bullet you don’t have to do any additional steps. When your fire a round out of a semi-auto a spring pushes the next shell before the firing pin, when you shoot a revolver the cylinder turns as you pull the trigger and places the bullet in front of the firing pin. Both guns place the round in front of the firing pin for the operator NO difference except in how it gets there whether by spring or cylinder.

  186. IT IS FAR TOO EASY FOR ANYONE, INCLUDING CRIMINALS, TO GET A GUN IN MOST PLACES IN THE US.

    and that will never change…. there are over 500 million firearms in circulation…. The only way to solve the problem is the mandatory sentencing of criminals that use a gun and that Law already exists.

  187. I’ve ignored it because it’s ridiculous

    No Pat, it’s ignored because it’s a difficult question for you to credibly answer

    An AR-15 that you can buy in any gun store is just an ugly deer rifle

    It’s also the preferred weapon of mass murderers so I’ll ask again:

    Please tell me, (outside of exceptions), the practical reasons why anyone should have a semi automatic pistol or AR15 military style rifle in their home?

    As I said earlier all police and military use a standard 9mm, a semi-auto. The majority never fired a revolver and are therefore not proficient with the weapon. It feels completely different in your hand and in the way you shoot it.

    Which is absolutely irrelevant to the question as to why the normal 5’8 non police nor military would want or should have a 9 mil or any other calibre semi auto at home?

    A semi-auto shoots the same as a revolver

    So why the resistance to having anything bar .38, .357 revolvers for protection?

  188. So why the resistance to having anything bar .38, .357 revolvers for protection?

    A) it’s impossible to remove them from the country.

    and

    B) There is no need to remove semi-auto anything from the market. It wouldn’t change a thing.

    Why should I have any new restrictions put on me or anyone else because of the behavior of criminals ?

  189. Criminals represent only a certain part of America’s gun sickness.

  190. well then they should be easy to deal with….. but they don’t.

    Why should any law abiding citizen be punished or restricted in anyway due to the behavior of criminals ?

    If the government dealt with the criminal gun crimes it might go a long way for them to be trusted with the issue, except crazy or criminal person does X so attack the sane and the law abiding.

    That’s what you support and you think it’s logical.

    The majority disagree or congress would pass all these fantasy laws without any fear…. but they don’t because they know they’d all be thrown out of office.

    To implement background checks on “Private Sales” it would require Universal Registration.

    That is a very simple thing to pass…. so why don’t they ?

    They don’t because the following election they’d lose, because the majority would vote them out.

  191. Pat, I’m going to comment on what you’ve said above but before I do let me say this:

    Ouite a few times on this thread I’ve asked you to give me practical, logical reasons for the average Yank to have a semi auto Bushwhacker or semi auto pistol, (excluding exceptions), at home and so far you’ve failed to offer one single reason as to why this should be.

    It’s impossible to remove them from the country

    No it’s not, they did it for 10-years with the AWB in 1994.

    All they need to do is offer an amnesty for two months of compensation for such weapons being surrendered and then prosecute anyone holding such weapons after the expiry date.

    There is no need to remove semi-auto anything from the market. It wouldn’t change a thing.

    There is and it would. It would restrict the access of the mass shooters murder weapon of choice and would have / will save hundreds of victims.

  192. Phantom was correct on pointing out the loophole.

  193. what you call a loophole the majority of americans call private business and a government overreach.

    If there was support for this to change they could pass registration. The fact that they can’t and won’t even try speaks to the reality.

  194. So no argument from you….now…that Phantom was right. You now wish to just call it something else.

  195. You’ve been wrong on this subject for many years.

    You repeatedly said that there was no loophole at all. Most everyone here with an interest in the subject would have read those comments of yours.

    I’ve not here been speaking of what should be – I spoke of what the actual situation was.

    I said that I could legally buy a gun with cash without going through a background check and I was 100% correct. I could do that this weekend in Virginia and in a number of other states.

    You may want to take a more humble approach when it comes to knowledge of the ( completely ineffective, patchwork ) laws.

  196. Patrick

    //I’ve ignored it because it’s ridiculous.//

    No Patrick, you ignored it because it’s a good question that you can’t give an honest answer to.
    This is your usual tactic on ATW Patrick. You dismiss awkward questions by claiming they’re stupid or ridiculous and/or give long, obfuscated responses that do not address the original question or statement at all. this is not a personal attack on you Patrick, this is an honest observation.

  197. Those were not trick or gotcha questions.

    If you’re not willing to speak straight on questions like that you shouldn’t be discussing important matters.

  198. Mahons, on August 20th, 2019 at 6:42 PM Said: Edit Comment
    So no argument from you….now…that Phantom was right. You now wish to just call it something else.

    No I’m calling it what it is Mandatory Firearm Registration. That is the only way the “loophole” can ever be closed so it isn’t ever going to get closed.

    Could you hear the cries at the first hint of a Mandatory Firearm Registration… You’d really see the crazies freakout… every I go to family reunions looking for a date militia member would lose their minds Nazi’s Nazi’s but they would also have a point.

  199. Dave

    Dave Alton, on August 20th, 2019 at 6:53 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick

    //I’ve ignored it because it’s ridiculous.//

    No Patrick, you ignored it because it’s a good question that you can’t give an honest answer to.
    This is your usual tactic on ATW Patrick. You dismiss awkward questions by claiming they’re stupid or ridiculous and/or give long, obfuscated responses that do not address the original question or statement at all. this is not a personal attack on you Patrick, this is an honest observation.

    I’ve ignored nothing I’ve answered every question 100% straight. You best go back and learn to read. Paul even responded to my answers which have yet to respond to.

    If you’re going to but in all I ask is please keep up.

  200. No it’s not, they did it for 10-years with the AWB in 1994.

    All they need to do is offer an amnesty for two months of compensation for such weapons being surrendered and then prosecute anyone holding such weapons after the expiry date.

    They didn’t remove any guns off the street you just couldn’t buy certain designs. This Law had zero effect on crime rates.

  201. They didn’t remove any guns off the street you just couldn’t buy certain designs.

    I don’t know how that claim is quantified as obviously if you couldn’t buy certain designs there would have been less of those guns on the street after a certain point.

    However it’s largely a moot point as my comment shows where there’s a will there’s a way and the AWB would just need to be tweaked to include the amnesty and prosecurion after the expiry date I mention above.

  202. Crime is only a certain part of America’s gun sickness.

  203. Patrick you are playing with words and not even fooling yourself.

  204. Even if there were no gun crime at all, America would still have a very big gun sickness.

  205. lmao…. this is and has been a good conversation.

  206. Paul….

    I don’t know how that claim is quantified as obviously if you couldn’t buy certain designs there would have been less of those guns on the street after a certain point.

    The only way there is ever LESS of a thing is by subtraction… not by not adding to it…

  207. No Phantom enjoying the handling of a firearm is not a sickness it’s a natural part of being human.

    Through all history man has used weapons, practised with weapons, and competed with weapons. The fact that man today still considers this necessary is hardwired into the human animal.

    Employing those human traits in the wood or at the range is how they should be used. You’re not going to change human nature, but you can focus it in nondestructive ways.

  208. I’m not proposing to ban guns

    I only note that that we have a big sickness around this and many won’t admit it.

    See chart in the attached. We have way more gun suicides – 50% more – than we do gun murders. The main victims of guns are their owners.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

  209. The only way there is ever LESS of a thing is by subtraction… not by not adding to it…

    I don’t know how that claim is quantified as obviously if you couldn’t buy certain designs there would have been less of those guns on the street after a certain point.

    That was clumsily worded Pat. There is no addition to the equation.

    If you limit the sale of something at a given date in the future as there is no access to the material there is no more of it in the future than there was at the specified cut off point. However, the point’s moot as I said, where there’s a will there’s a way and the AWB would just need to be tweaked to include the amnesty and prosecurion after the expiry date I mention above.

    No Phantom enjoying the handling of a firearm is not a sickness it’s a natural part of being human

    No it’s absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I’d say that on probability those who have handled a firearm in the world would be a minority.

  210. The only way to use a gun in a non-destructive way is to beat it into a ploughshare.

  211. Does keeping a loaded gun in the house increase or decrease the chance of a resident committing suicide?

    Answer carefully.

  212. I’m not proposing to ban guns

    I don’t think anyone here’s proposing a blanket ban but a restriction to access of particular types.

  213. The main victims of guns are their owners.

    That’s why I got rid of mine when diagnosed with Parkinson’s. It was not a hard call. I just looked at the statistics while my mind is still all right.

  214. Good man Charles

  215. PVR

    “You now compare gun owners to slave owners….. do you really want to make that argument Ok you say I don’t want to debate… Lets debate.” I am not comparing them; you need literacy lessons. I used slave owning as an example of what was once legal then illegal. There is a difference between an example and a comparison.

    “The moral argument…. What morality is that ? The morality that allows our city to go easy on criminals while they punish the Law Abiding… that is the morality you push.” It is very simple. The law you rely on to own guns also allows mass murderers to buy guns. If the law is changed to only police and military can own guns, the mass murderers would not have access to guns, nor would you unless you belong to the police or military. Such a change would save lives which is a priority of morality. I don’t buy your argument on personal protection, that is why we have police services. Cities going easy on criminals is not relevant to my moral argument. At the end of the day, you want to own guns for your own personal pleasure, which is of much lower value than saving lives.

  216. No using slavery as an example in anything is inflammatory.

    The law you rely on to own guns also allows mass murderers to buy guns

    No it doesn’t mass murderers are Felons and forbidden from purchasing Firearms.

    If the law is changed to only police and military can own guns, the mass murderers would not have access to guns, nor would you unless you belong to the police or military.

    Then to be clear you are calling for a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

    Such a change would save lives which is a priority of morality. I don’t buy your argument on personal protection, that is why we have police services.

    So you do not believe that personal firearms are used Daily by civilians to save their lives and the lives of others ? And you believe the police response time is efficient for muggings and home invasions ?

    Cities going easy on criminals is not relevant to my moral argument.

    So you see the fact that your neighbor owning a gun is more a threat to you than the city releasing felons and criminal illegals into the streets where you work and live ?

    you want to own guns for your own personal pleasure, which is of much lower value than saving lives.

    My being in possession of a Firearm has saved my life 3 times. I know firsthand how valuable being able to employ my 2nd Amendment right.

    So in Summation you want to do away with the 2nd, your more afraid of your neighbors gun in his house than the criminals being released into your streets to prey on the people that you demand to be helpless to defend themselves. Because it should only be the Cops job to protect you and your families lives.

    That’s pretty sad and lacking in any morality that I understand.

    Can you answer the questions above and explain to me the morality of disarming law abiding people while you release dangerous criminals into their streets. I can’t believe you don’t understand that when you make people vulnerable and then release predators among them that those predators will follow their nature with no threat of being stopped by anyone whose front door they decide to kick in.

  217. A guy with a clean record can buy a gun. And that same person can go on to commit mass murder With that gun

    Like the pulse nightclub shooter

    I would think that there are few repeat mass murderers of this type

  218. No using slavery as an example in anything is inflammatory.

    ye would have to be a bit of a snowflake to be ‘inflamed’ by that. Plus, I would say you were the only person here to misunderstand NYer’s example as a direct comparison.

    I can’t believe you don’t understand that when you make people vulnerable and then release predators among them that those predators will follow their nature with no threat of being stopped by anyone whose front door they decide to kick in.

    I can’t believe that you haven’t read all the comments here on this thread and in numerous others over the years, pointing out that countries such as Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Germany etc all have tighter restrictions on gun ownership, and all, by a country mile, fall way behind the US in terms of gun violence. I further find it incredible that you cannot or most likely, will not, see the direct correlation between high gun ownership, lax gun ownership laws and high gun-related death-counts.

  219. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 12:10 AM Said: Edit Comment
    A guy with a clean record can buy a gun. And that same person can go on to commit mass murder With that gun

    Like the pulse nightclub shooter

    I would think that there are few repeat mass murderers of this type

    If the person has no record what do want to create “Minority Report”….. ?

    The only way to deal with what someone MIGHT do is better mental health no Law can stop crazy.

  220. I can’t believe that you haven’t read all the comments here on this thread and in numerous others over the years, pointing out that countries such as Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Germany etc all have tighter restrictions on gun ownership, and all, by a country mile, fall way behind the US in terms of gun violence. I further find it incredible that you cannot or most likely, will not, see the direct correlation between high gun ownership, lax gun ownership laws and high gun-related death-counts.

    It doesn’t matter what any other country does…. We have more violent criminals than any other country… that’s why even with not prosecuting them with the mandatory gun laws we have more people locked up than anywhere else.

    I see only a correlation between lack of mandatory sentencing and high criminal gun use.

    When you don’t punish a wrong behavior it is repeated.

  221. The only way to deal with what someone MIGHT do is better mental health no Law can stop crazy.

    If this ‘someone’ was to be locked up, like you used to do with people with mental health issues before 1980, presumably they wouldn’t have access to any form of weapon. Now that you have released them all, doesn’t it make sense to restrict their access to weapons on the outside, including guns? Yes, they could pick up a knife, or a hammer, or a blunt/sharp object anywhere, but if you remove guns from the equation (or severely restrict access to guns), then that’s one type of weapon – and one capable of causing multiple deaths in one incident – they can’t use.
    Or is your right to own a load of guns more important than stopping a crazy guy killing a bunch of people with the same type of guns?

  222. We have more violent criminals than any other country

    The fact that this one statistic doesn’t make you determined to reevaluate your gun laws says so much about you.
    The crazy people in your country aren’t the people with clinically proven mental health issues. The crazy people are the ones who write sentences like that and still refuse to change the rules regarding gun ownership.

  223. When you don’t punish a wrong behavior it is repeated.

    This should be read out at every funeral for every victim of every gun-related death in your country. This is how little human life means to someone when their ‘right to bear arms’ is questioned.

  224. That would make perfect sense except the federal government has sealed all mental health records that would prevent them from buying weapons or even being Identified.

    Some states have tried to work around this…. in Pa if you are involuntarily committed they come take your guns, same with a protection from abuse order, but most states don’t and the ACLU brought multiple suits nationally to keep mental health records sealed.

  225. That would make perfect sense except the federal government has sealed all mental health records that would prevent them from buying weapons or even being Identified.

    So it’s the federal government’s fault, and not the crazy people who threaten the government with violence if they try to take their guns away? Gotcha.

  226. This should be read out at every funeral for every victim of every gun-related death in your country. This is how little human life means to someone when their ‘right to bear arms’ is questioned.

    That makes no sense….. so they let the criminal out of jail and he shoots and kill someon and it’s the guns fault… or legal gun owners fault you couldn’t have understood what I was saying.

    When you don’t punish a wrong behavior it is repeated.

    When a criminal commits a crime with a gun and you don’t sentence them to the mandatory 5/15/30 years they don’t get the message not to use a gun.

  227. Seimi you’re being ridiculous

    So it’s the federal government’s fault, and not the crazy people who threaten the government with violence if they try to take their guns away? Gotcha.

    People who if threatened with removal by force of their constitutional rights who defend themselves with force aren’t crazy… nor are they the crazies anyone was talking about….

  228. …nor are they the crazies anyone was talking about….

    They are the ones who threaten violence against the government they voted for, if that government tries to restrict their access to guns. They are just some of the crazy people who need to be watched and talked about.

    …and it’s the guns fault… or legal gun owners fault

    You keep repeating this, as if it somehow bolsters your argument: it doesn’t. The gun did not pull it’s own trigger. The gun did not decide it was going to enter the school/cinema/mall/hotel and discharge itself, reload itself and then discharge itself again. Stop trying to evoke some kind on anthropomorphic quality in the gun. It is an inanimate object, operated by a human being. If you restrict access to that inanimate object and carefully screen those who want to use it, then you will greatly reduce the number of people killed by that inanimate object.

    I don’t know if this can be made any more simple for you. I know it won’t make a blind bit of difference to your view, but it really can’t be more simple: remove/restrict guns = less gun-related deaths

  229. mass murderers are Felons and forbidden from purchasing Firearms

    You said this, which doesn’t mean anything

    I am not aware of any cases where convicted mass murderers have been released from prison only To buy guns in order to commit more crimes

  230. You keep repeating this, as if it somehow bolsters your argument: it doesn’t. The gun did not pull it’s own trigger. The gun did not decide it was going to enter the school/cinema/mall/hotel and discharge itself, reload itself and then discharge itself again. Stop trying to evoke some kind on anthropomorphic quality in the gun. It is an inanimate object, operated by a human being. If you restrict access to that inanimate object and carefully screen those who want to use it, then you will greatly reduce the number of people killed by that inanimate object.

    I don’t know if this can be made any more simple for you. I know it won’t make a blind bit of difference to your view, but it really can’t be more simple: remove/restrict guns = less gun-related deaths

    No just keep those who misuse them locked up. It’s simple and the only solution that can be implemented.

  231. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 1:03 AM Said: Edit Comment
    mass murderers are Felons and forbidden from purchasing Firearms

    You said this, which doesn’t mean anything

    I am not aware of any cases where convicted mass murderers have been released from prison only To buy guns in order to commit more crimes

    neither am I and no one especially me said their were. I was responding in a context your not grasping to one of the things NYr said…. pay attention

  232. Phantom what do you think of your favorite rags 1619 project ?

  233. I would bet that many mass murderers Had a perfectly clean record the day before they committed their crime

  234. I haven’t read much about it but I intend to

  235. No just keep those who misuse them locked up. It’s simple and the only solution that can be implemented.

    No, the other solution is to restrict the type of guns people can own and the type of person who can own them. Unfortunately, like so many other places, it is the threat of terrorist violence which prohibits this from happening.

  236. look into it interested in what you have to say about it….

    The thing that you missed NYr said my laws allow mass murderers to buy guns… My answer was sarcastic… when the bought the firearm they wouldn’t have been a mass murderer… and if they hadn’t committed the crime how could anything stop them from the purchase prior.. thus my reference to Minority Report.

  237. No, the other solution is to restrict the type of guns people can own and the type of person who can own them.

    we already do

  238. we already do

    You also already threaten the government with terrorist violence if they try to restrict your access to guns.

  239. not terrorist violence Seimi…. Constitutionally sanctioned defense against The Tyranny of the State….. that’s what the Amendment was defined for…. and we will not don SKI MASKS if it ever comes to that we shall act out of Duty with Honor.

  240. not terrorist violence Seimi…. Constitutionally sanctioned defense against The Tyranny of the State

    What an absolute pile of crap. Constitutionally sanctioned defense’??? You, I and many others have talked here for years about how we get the leaders we vote for, so how does that sit with you and the rest of your minority, when the leaders you voted for pass laws to restrict your access to guns? Does all that go to the wall, as you and the rest of your local ‘well regulated militia’ get together and plan how you will shoot and kill members of your own army??

    Answer this honestly: If Trump were to push through a law tomorrow, which set in place restrictions – not a ban – on the type of gun(s) you possess or can purchase, and that law meant that you had to hand in most of your current arsenal – would you take to the streets and fight, shoot and kill members of the us army – of which your own daughter is a member? – with those same guns? Please be 100% honest here, because you have implied that you will take up arms against an army that contains your own child to protect your imagined ‘god-given’ right to have guns. Or is she one of the traitors who will disobey the orders passed down from her commander in chief? Do you already know that she will be a traitor, and is that why you are so confident in your assertions that the army will not fight its own citizens?

    and we will not don SKI MASKS if it ever comes to that we shall act out of Duty with Honor.

    The first half of this sentence just shows that you’re getting annoyed. I haven’t been rude or abusive, PaTroll, so there’s no need to do be like that with me. If you want to discuss the legitimacy (or not) of the IRA, then open another thread on it. You always complain about your Israel threads being hijacked by this type of thing, so don’t be guilty of it yourself.
    The second half of the sentence – is that the title of the latest First Person Shooter on PS4 and XBox? Sounds like it. Duty with Honor – Killdergarten. Duty with Honor II: High School Musical Massacre. Duty with Honor III: Faster, Illegal Immigrants. Kill! Kill!

    Don’t try and make your empty promises of violence against the state anything other than what it is – the threat of terrorism.

  241. Two things Pat.

    Firstly, is their a central or local register of armed militia members available to view publicly?

    Secondly, what IN YOUR VIEW would constitute ‘tyranny of the state?’

  242. *there

  243. This is being a genuinely interesting thread.
    The suggestions from many of the posters here, especially the Americans, about ways to deal with restricting firearms and reducing gun related deaths in the US have been really interesting and informative.
    I really do hope that at some point in the future, many of the excellent proposals suggested here become reality.

  244. PVR

    a. It is impossible to know before a sale who is going to use the gun for mass murder.

    b. It is not necessary for anybody other than police and military to have guns.

    c. The law should ban sale of guns except to police and military.

    If a. and b. are true then the conclusion must be c.

    Unless the law is changed there is no way to stop the next El Paso or Dayton.

  245. I think people should be allowed to purchase guns, but the should be reasonable restrictions on the type of gun, who may purchase and the conditions. An ouright ban is Unconstitutional and frankly would create a more dangerous situation than currently exists.

  246. I think people should be allowed to purchase guns, but there should be reasonable restrictions on the type of gun, who may purchase and the conditions.

    That would be my opinion Mahons and I think it be the general consensus here. I also don’t think there’s ever been a logically cohesive argument made against such a position.

  247. An outright UK type ban would never have political support among the public, never mind the Constitution.

    Talk of such bans in the US are not practical, not in the real world. They’re actually hugely unhelpful IMO.

    I’d hope at some point to get some movement on some controls at a national level.

    The states are useless ( PA doesn’t have any training requirement, TX celebrates the El Paso massacre by loosening what were already very loose controls )

    The majority of the public is in favor of movement in this area, extremist single issue fanatics will fight every step of the way to eternity. They cry fake tears but think that massacres and huge everyday body counts including from suicide are an acceptable price to pay so that they have unlimited use of pop toys that make them feel tough.

  248. Extremist single issue fanatics will fight every step of the way to eternity

    Americans, why do you think this is? There is no case to be made, (with exceptions), outside revolvers for protection.

    Why do you think the gun guys fight tooth and nail against sensible limitations, (as opposed to a general ban),?

  249. Paul – it is a fetish thing. And I am serious when I write that.

  250. Paul

    It comes down to the fact that the gun nuts are absolutely terrified every minute of every day – of damned near everything.

    And yes it is a fetish.

    When they’re carrying a gun, they feel like a very powerful man, like Wyatt Earp, when they’re not, not so much.

    You notice that relatively few women are gun fanatics.

    In real life, I’ve never met a woman gun nut, but I’ve met a number of men who are. Originally from Brooklyn or Staten Island or New Jersey, men terrified of the blacks, of everything.

  251. My own personal opinion on it would be a deadlier version of why people join loyalist bands – some kind of pretendy toy soldier fantasy.

    However, as Pat would no doubt opine, I’m not American and wouldn’t understand so I wanted American’s opinions.

  252. And some of these guys had good reason for a lot of their fear – ie an Italian American guy in East New York NYC( dangerous area, esp then ) who had an ” arsenal ” ( his words ) of illegal guns in his basement.

  253. More a ” Dirty Harry ” fantasy.

    That was one influential movie for these guys. Every one of them think that they’re him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mE6ba3qj8

  254. Mahons

    How do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of potential mass murderers if the buyer has a perfectly clean record? We know some mass murderers were allowed to legally buy guns because their record was clean.

  255. sorry Seimi I did get annoyed… I apologize.

    Give me a few and I’ll answer your questions

  256. Answer this honestly: If Trump were to push through a law tomorrow, which set in place restrictions – not a ban – on the type of gun(s) you possess or can purchase, and that law meant that you had to hand in most of your current arsenal – would you take to the streets and fight, shoot and kill members of the us army – of which your own daughter is a member? – with those same guns? Please be 100% honest here, because you have implied that you will take up arms against an army that contains your own child to protect your imagined ‘god-given’ right to have guns. Or is she one of the traitors who will disobey the orders passed down from her commander in chief? Do you already know that she will be a traitor, and is that why you are so confident in your assertions that the army will not fight its own citizens?

    No I would not take to the streets nor would I shoot anyone. Out of my collection of guns I only have 3 left in the house and except for the two shotguns I keep at the club that’s all I have left. I sold the rest.

    Now those 3 I have in my house would immediately be reported stolen and would disappear.

    I would join in and help lead and setup the revolution. I would also go back to carrying this…. I have two of them.

    https://www.swordcane.com/mk2b.htm

    Hopefully as a psychologist specializing in ptsd my daughter won’t be assigned to the round up detail.

  257. Paul McMahon, on August 21st, 2019 at 10:37 AM Said: Edit Comment
    Two things Pat.

    Firstly, is their a central or local register of armed militia members available to view publicly?

    Secondly, what IN YOUR VIEW would constitute ‘tyranny of the state?’

    No central registry that I’m aware of.

    Tyranny of the State….. disbanding the Bill of Rights which is what you are describing.

  258. No one is talking about any such thing

  259. You can make the case that NY is tampering with the Bill of Rights ( I would not say so for a few reasons, but lets leave that rest )

    But

    no one else here is speaking of banning guns

  260. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 3:34 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Paul

    It comes down to the fact that the gun nuts are absolutely terrified every minute of every day – of damned near everything.

    And yes it is a fetish.

    When they’re carrying a gun, they feel like a very powerful man, like Wyatt Earp, when they’re not, not so much.

    You notice that relatively few women are gun fanatics.

    In real life, I’ve never met a woman gun nut, but I’ve met a number of men who are. Originally from Brooklyn or Staten Island or New Jersey, men terrified of the blacks, of everything.

    complete leftwing propaganda Phantom.

    I carry a gun everyday, I have for 40yrs and I never carried out of fear, but I did and do carry out of necessity. Where I live now I don’t even have to lock my doors, but I still have friends and family that live in Philly. I’m in the city a lot, Philly is not a safe city.

    If it’s a fetish then all hobbies and sports are fetishes.

    I carry my gun everyday, I don’t even think about it let alone “feel powerful”. It’s like putting on your belt, it’s just another piece of clothing.

    Both my daughters and my wife shoot, my mother when she was younger before retirement always carried a gun and used to go to the range 4 times a year to keep her proficiency. You said you don’t any men that own guns so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t know any women that do. They are a much smaller number than men, but there are plenty of women that own guns even if it’s just for home protection.

    I don’t know anyone that carries out of just fear, and I tell everyone that I have ever trained that if they are consumed by fear they need to look at other things to eleviate their fear. Carrying a gun and being in constant fear leads to people not following safety and security protocols in the use of a firearm.

  261. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 4:26 PM Said: Edit Comment
    No one is talking about any such thing

    my answer was to Seimi’s hypothetical

  262. Now those 3 I have in my house would immediately be reported stolen and would disappear.

    I thiught you were a nation of laws. Wouldn’t such a move be against those laws that you supposedly abide by?

    No central registry that I’m aware of

    Surely such militias are then unconstitutional in the sense that they’re not well regulated?

    Tyranny of the State….. disbanding the Bill of Rights which is what you are describing

    No it’s not. Limiting the kind of arms people have access to is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Complete leftwing propaganda Phantom

    Okay Pat,

    There is no case to be made, (with exceptions), outside revolvers for protection.

    Why do you think the gun guys fight tooth and nail against sensible limitations, (as opposed to a general ban),?

    The floor is yours to counter the ‘leftwing propaganda’

  263. *is not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

  264. I thiught you were a nation of laws. Wouldn’t such a move be against those laws that you supposedly abide by?

    If they are going house to house we would be under martial law, and it would be a disbanding of the bill of rights because it’s a stripping of due process and the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments.

    Surely such militias are then unconstitutional in the sense that they’re not well regulated?

    You’re not understanding the structure of the militia as it was written, it has nothing to do with the groups that CALL themselves a militia. A well regulated militia is a military unit that WOULD be setup by each state at the time of need. No state has a standing militia anymore.

    No it’s not. Limiting the kind of arms people have access to is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    it is a disbanding of the bill of rights… see above.

    Why do you think the gun guys fight tooth and nail against sensible limitations, (as opposed to a general ban),?

    Slippery slope…. if we let them punish the Law Abiding even once because of the actions of criminals or crazies it won’t stop there.

  265. If the government pass a law which restricts – not bans – ownership of certain types of guns, and gun owners don’t comply, then they are the ones breaking the law and therefore there is no disbanding of the Bill of Rights, just law breakers being dealt with in accordance with the law, surely?

  266. No one is being punished if flamethrowers, fragmentation mines and sticks of dynamite are not allowed to be kept by the public, no one is harmed if assault weapons are similarly banned.

    It’s common sense

  267. If they are going house to house we would be under martial law

    Except you didn’t say anything about ‘house to house’

    Seimi asked:

    If Trump were to push through a law tomorrow, which set in place restrictions – not a ban – on the type of gun(s) you possess or can purchase, and that law meant that you had to hand in most of your current arsenal

    And you answered:

    Now those 3 I have in my house would immediately be reported stolen and would disappear

    Nothing about ‘house to house’ much less Martial Law – that’s a contrived invention.

    It has nothing to do with the groups that CALL themselves a militia

    Hence the current militias are unconstitutional and should be disbanded and disarmed?

    It is a disbanding of the bill of rights… see above

    It’s not. See my

    Limiting the kind of arms people have access to is not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Which is the Second Ammendment clause in the BOR.

    Slippery slope…. if we let them punish the Law Abiding even once because of the actions of criminals or crazies it won’t stop there

    They’re not ‘punishing’ law abiding Americans, they’re restricting access to deadly weapons which have been so frequently lethally used without affecting your Second Ammendment rights, A hypothetic ‘slippery slope’ prediction is also no logical basis to oppose a law which has no bearing on fundamental rights.

  268. Does anybody have a solution to this dilemma?

    How do you keep guns out of the hands of potential mass murderers if the buyer has a perfectly clean record? We know some mass murderers were allowed to legally buy guns because their record was clean.

  269. There is no way to eliminate it, what we have to stile for instead is to reduce it. Like any crimes be they murder, kidnapping or Jay waking

  270. Mass murder, horrible as it is, is a tiny portion of the toll of the American gun sickness.

    Mass murder, or even mass murder and all other crime combined should not be the sole focus of the discussion.

  271. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 5:25 PM Said: Edit Comment
    No one is being punished if flamethrowers, fragmentation mines and sticks of dynamite are not allowed to be kept by the public, no one is harmed if assault weapons are similarly banned.

    It’s common sense

    ASSAULT WEAPONS are already banned it’s only people who don’t know what they are talking about that say otherwise.

  272. New Yorker, on August 21st, 2019 at 6:35 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Does anybody have a solution to this dilemma?

    How do you keep guns out of the hands of potential mass murderers if the buyer has a perfectly clean record? We know some mass murderers were allowed to legally buy guns because their record was clean.

    There is no solution to stop a crazy person.

  273. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 6:40 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Mass murder, horrible as it is, is a tiny portion of the toll of the American gun sickness.

    Mass murder, or even mass murder and all other crime combined should not be the sole focus of the discussion.

    What do you believe the focus should be ?

  274. We can’t stop every crazy person, but we can reduce their impact. And please stop accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about when your errors have been demonstrated above (again).

  275. Paul….

    Seimi played a game of if…. I answered and I answered honestly and openly.

    If they passed a Law that people had to turn in certain kinds of guns the Law would not be followed we have seen this where states have tried it.

    By banning Firearms that are already in peoples possessive you’re making people criminals without due process, and since we know the majority wouldn’t turn them in they would have to go house to house and Seimi implied that when he asked if my daughter would desert.

    Which is the Second Ammendment clause in the BOR.

    lmao….

    The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the constitution so try #2…..

  276. There are about 40,000 gun deaths in the US annually, most of them suicides.

    I’d like to focus on getting the number of gun and other suicides way down. That issue deserves equal prominence to everything else we speak of.

    NRA and it’s followers never wish to speak of gun suicides. It’s as though there was no problem with it, though more lives are lost to this than to crimes or accidents.

  277. Mahons

    Mahons, on August 21st, 2019 at 6:55 PM Said: Edit Comment
    We can’t stop every crazy person, but we can reduce their impact. And please stop accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about when your errors have been demonstrated above (again).

    What errors….. and Phantom has no clue what he’s talking about… and I’m playing nice I don’t want the whiner crying to David!

  278. You were wrong on the private gun sale loophole, and you were wrong on that for many years here.

    Your apology is accepted.

  279. We are happy to educate you on the subject of guns and the local and federal laws that apply to their sale, ownership and use.

    This site is like a free continuing education course.

  280. You’ve cut to cut back on the personal issue comments. It doesn’t do you or site any good. I think you know that.

    If you look above you’ll read where you were wrong about what he said about the ease of buying a gun in VA.

  281. I’d like to focus on getting the number of gun and other suicides way down. That issue deserves equal prominence to everything else we speak of.

    I’ll talk about the suicide issue.

    In Pa if you say you want to kill yourself you get 302’d. That’s a 72hr locked in psych eval. If you are determined to be a threat to yourself or others and you have firearms they are taken.

    This area has to do with personal responsibility of your friends and family. If you are showing signs of suicide or erratic dangerous behavior it is upto your friends and family to have you 302’d.

  282. There often are no signs.

    And keeping a loaded gun in the house, especially if it is not locked up, makes it incredibly easy for a family member, including a despondent teen going through a rough patch, to end his/her life instantly.

  283. You’ve AFAIK never once brought up the gun suicide issue on your own.

    You guys never do.

  284. Mahons, on August 21st, 2019 at 7:08 PM Said: Edit Comment
    You’ve cut to cut back on the personal issue comments. It doesn’t do you or site any good. I think you know that.

    If you look above you’ll read where you were wrong about what he said about the ease of buying a gun in VA.

    No I wasn’t wrong he said he could go to Va and buy a gun….. now if he has a friend or family in Va that is willing to sell him a gun he could do that… but he can’t just go to Va and buy a gun without a background check just because he is in Va. 28 states require nothing for personal sales and only 17 states require it, but have no enforcement mechanism. The rest have backround checks required for only the sale of handguns.

    https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

    What Phantom wrote was a spinny lie.

  285. In PA approx 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, and approx half of suicides are by gun deaths. Nationally the fatality rate by those who choose guns is over 80 %

  286. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 7:15 PM Said: Edit Comment
    You’ve AFAIK never once brought up the gun suicide issue on your own.

    You guys never do.

    you and I have discussed the suicide issue at least a dozen times.

  287. Mahons, on August 21st, 2019 at 7:21 PM Said: Edit Comment
    In PA approx 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, and approx half of suicides are by gun deaths. Nationally the fatality rate by those who choose guns is over 80 %

    and these people who have decided to end there lives won’t just because they don’t have a gun….. oh ok… so now you’re a shrink also ?

  288. on a personal note…..

    Mahons, on August 21st, 2019 at 7:08 PM Said: Edit Comment
    You’ve cut to cut back on the personal issue comments. It doesn’t do you or site any good. I think you know that.

    I have cut back on almost all personal attacks. You are the only one who has cut back on them against me….

    yet you never take Phantom or Dave to task when they go after me…. Why is that Mahons ?

  289. I have always been the one to raise the suicide issue.

    Gun fanatics avoid it more than Dracula avoids garlic

  290. Oh poor me

    Oh me oh my look at Miss Ohio

  291. While anyone who has observed your behavior over 10 years on ATW might be awarded an honorary degree in psychology I certainly don’t claim to be one. People who try to end their lives with guns are over 100% successful. People who use alternate means do not accomplish that goal at the same rate.

  292. Phantom, on August 21st, 2019 at 7:14 PM Said: Edit Comment
    There often are no signs.

    And keeping a loaded gun in the house, especially if it is not locked up, makes it incredibly easy for a family member, including a despondent teen going through a rough patch, to end his/her life instantly.

    You can’t stop crazy.

    All guns should be kept either on you physically or in a safe when not being carried.

    Every firearm I owned when my kids were growing up were kept in one safe empty and the shells in a separate safe.

    It’s call responsibility.

  293. A loaded gun in a house raises the threat of violent death to every inhabitant of that house.

    That’s why these guys avoid the issue at all costs.

  294. Very many Americans do not lock up their guns.

    There’s no requirement in most places that they do so.

  295. Patrick – I don’t believe I have seen Phantom or Dave draw first blood on a thread if you feel they have crossed the line call my attention to it and I will look. An occasional lapse can come from anyone, what to avoid is a pattern of behavior.

  296. so much for your 100%

    10 People Who Survived Suicide Attempts By Gunshot To The …
    https://listverse.com/2019/01/07/10-people-who-survived-suicide-attempts-by-gunshot-to
    10 People Who Survived Suicide Attempts By Gunshot To The Head. Joe Duncan January 7, 2019. Suicide is an epidemic that we tend to think of as a modern thing. … The 33-year-old man walked into the gun range, purchased ten bullets, fired off seven of them, and …

  297. If they passed a Law that people had to turn in certain kinds of guns the Law would not be followed we have seen this where states have tried it

    But no one said anything about going door to door or Martial Law. That was a contrived invention by you. If they passed a law and you did as you said, i.e. your weapns would ‘disappear’ you’d be breaking the law.

    So much for being a ‘nation of laws’

    ASSAULT WEAPONS are already banned

    Precisely and with semi autos all they have to do is offer an amnesty for two months of compensation for such weapons being surrendered and then prosecute anyone holding such weapons after the expiry date.

    The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the constitution so try #2…..

    Why do you think I speak about the Second Ammendment and its inclusion in the BoR?

    Regardless a ‘slippery slope’ hypothetical prediction is not ‘punishing’ law abiding Americans, by restricting access to deadly weapons which have been so frequently lethally used without affecting your Second Ammendment rights. A hypothetic ‘slippery slope’ prediction is also no logical basis to oppose a law which has no bearing on fundamental freedoms.

    I’m going to assume that you believe that militias as they presently exist are then unconstitutional in the sense that they’re not well regulated?

  298. Mahons, on August 21st, 2019 at 7:32 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick – I don’t believe I have seen Phantom or Dave draw first blood on a thread if you feel they have crossed the line call my attention to it and I will look. An occasional lapse can come from anyone, what to avoid is a pattern of behavior.

    If you haven’t seen it Mahons then you’re just not paying attention and if you want to talk patterns of behavior mine has greatly improved.

    I have pleasant 90% of the time. I don’t attack Daphne personally when she pops in, I have been nice to both Mairin and Frank…. I haven’t even fucked with you.

    Dave and Phantom along with Noel show a continued pattern of abuse towards me. Noel has gotten better, but Dave hasn’t and Phantom goes out of his way to instigate, and then whines when I retaliate.

    Your own pattern of behavior towards Patty is something you should look at. You don’t usually poke me, but how you treat her is a disgrace.

  299. Why do you think I speak about the Second Ammendment and its inclusion in the BoR?

    you asking this…

    Which is the Second Ammendment clause in the BOR.

  300. Precisely and with semi autos all they have to do is offer an amnesty for two months of compensation for such weapons being surrendered and then prosecute anyone holding such weapons after the expiry date.

    So they pass a law that makes 90% of the 300 million firearms in LEGAL possession ILLEGAL and you think the 100 million who own them will just turn them in… you really don’t know the american public.

    Let me ask you something Paul.

    Why haven’t they passed any of these “common sense laws” ?

  301. Patrick -you are correct, my 100%was a typo. The number was over 80%.

  302. good man

  303. you asking this…

    I’m not asking anything. I’m stating that the Second Ammendment rights are incorporated into the BoR as a statement of facts and that limiting access to semi automatic weapons wouldn’t be a violation of that right much less ‘dismanteling’ the BoR as you claim.

    Am I incorrect?

    Why haven’t they passed any of these “common sense laws” ?

    I don’t know why Pat but that’s not what the conversation is about. You have said were such a law to be passed your 3 weapons would be ‘disappeared’ which makes your ‘nation under the law’ a mockery almost as truthful as your ‘door to door Martial Law’ comment.

    So, am I right in assuming that you think that militias as they presently exist are then unconstitutional in the sense that they’re not well regulated?

  304. not done just taking a break….. out to walk the railway trail… it’s only 87/31 low humidity only 65% a good day for a walk.

  305. Mahons: “There is no way to eliminate it, what we have to stile for instead is to reduce it. Like any crimes be they murder, kidnapping or Jay waking.” Mass murderers almost always use guns. Guns are the problem and should be kept out of the hands of potential mass murderers. We can prevent the legal sale of guns. It would not prevent mass murders by those with illegal guns, but it would probably prevent the majority of mass murders. To take a position resigned to accept mass murder is no way to address a major problem. Lumping mass murder with jaywalking is not helpful.

    PVR: “There is no solution to stop a crazy person.” But there is a way to stop a crazy person legally getting his hands on a gun to commit mass murder.

  306. On suicide by gun. If a person wants to commit suicide they have a right to do so. And, if you stop them from doing it with a gun, it is likely they will find other means to do so. Frankly, I don’t know why it is an issue. It seems like interfering in a private matter.

  307. On suicide by gun. If a person wants to commit suicide they have a right to do so.

    Is that true if its a 16 year old who kills himself with dad’s gun ( which always keep you safe, nach ) ? Would you like to read about such stories? There are many of them.

    And no they won’t always find another means to do so. The UK has a much lower suicide rate than the US does, and I think that this is a major reason.

  308. Just before dawn, as the Albuquerque sky filled the house with thin, pale blue light, 16-year-old Aurra Gardner took a small handgun out from behind the headboard in her mother’s bedroom.

    Kerianne Gardner sat in the living room, typing an email, vaguely aware of her younger daughters as they tied their shoes and packed their lunches. She heard a loud thud and, at first, thought it was a door slamming. Or maybe Aurra’s cello case had fallen over. She walked down the hall and tried the door of Aurra’s bedroom. It was locked. No one in the Gardner house ever locked a door. When there was no response to her knock, Kerianne started to panic. She ran to find a pin, something to unlock the handle, but her hands were trembling. She asked Brian, her partner, to do it.

    The lock clicked. He went in the room and emerged seconds later, pale and shaking.

    “Do I need to call 911?” Kerianne said from the hallway.

    “Yes,” he said.

    Aurra Gardner was one of 16 teenagers who ended their lives with a firearm in New Mexico in 2017. The state has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the country — it’s almost always in the top four, and double the national average. The suicide rate among those younger than 20 rose steeply in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, and far outpaced national trends.

    Nearly half of all suicides in the United States are by firearm, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outsized role guns play in New Mexico suicides should come as little surprise: New Mexico has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the county. Half of households report owning a gun, compared to only 30 percent nationally, and high ownership rates have been consistently linked to high suicide rates. But reducing the number of young people dying by firearm suicide is confounding. The act can be particularly impulsive in this age group, whose suicidal members often experience a steep, fast decline in their mental health. And when a firearm is employed, a suicide attempt is almost always successful.

    https://www.thetrace.org/2019/08/one-among-many/

  309. NY – I’m not equating mass murder with suicide. Don’t be silly.

    And mass murder isn’t the most common for of murder. Remove legal guns and more murders will occur as people will not be able to protect themselves.

  310. Suicide rate, both sexes

    US 13.7
    Ireland 10.9
    Germany 9.1
    UK 7.6
    Spain 6.1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

  311. Remove legal guns and more murders will occur as people will not be able to protect themselves.

    I’m against a blanket ban on weapons Mahons but I don’t know how sound that argument is. Europe has much stricter gun laws than the US and we have bad guys with guns here too.

  312. Patrick

    Dave and Phantom along with Noel show a continued pattern of abuse towards me. Noel has gotten better, but Dave hasn’t and Phantom goes out of his way to instigate, and then whines when I retaliate.

    Where have I been abusive towards you recently Patrick? And when it comes to mild insults you give as good as you get.

  313. Endless, endless self-pity.

    He thinks that pointing out his pattern of errors is a ” pattern of abuse “.

    Just as pointing out Patty’s pattern of Fake News promulgation is abuse and women-hating. Or something.

  314. no selfpity unlike you I don’t whine about it to others I punch back.

  315. Mahons

    “NY – I’m not equating mass murder with suicide. Don’t be silly.” This is what I wrote: “Lumping mass murder with jaywalking is not helpful.” Who is silly now?

  316. Phantom

    “And no they won’t always find another means to do so.” If a person is determined to kill themselves I believe they will find a way to do it.

    “The UK has a much lower suicide rate than the US does, and I think that this is a major reason.” I’m not sure of what you are saying. Are you saying because the UK has stricter gun ownership laws there is a lower suicide rate? Maybe people in the UK are less inclined to commit suicide than Americans.

  317. I think that Europeans are every bit as subject to sadness and despair as Americans are.

    These moments often pass, and life hopefully gets better again.

    A kid in Wyoming who has a very rough patch, and whose dad leaves a loaded weapon lying around, Can take his own life in an instant.

    A kid in Europe faces the same horrible days ( girlfriend leaves him, fails the big test ) Has a much better chance of writing it out, because there is no loaded gun lying around. Most any other means of taking one’s life takes more work than pulling the trigger.

    Of course keeping a loaded gun in the house means that there is a higher chance that someone in that house will commit suicide. The stats basically speak for themselves. Unless You want to say that Europeans are happy all the time, Which has not been my observation

  318. Riding it out

  319. I’m against a blanket ban on weapons Mahons but I don’t know how sound that argument is. Europe has much stricter gun laws than the US and we have bad guys with guns here too.

    Europe is not saturated in guns as the US is, nor is it as violent.

    Let me put the debate in a different direction.

    The US is saturated in Firearms realistic numbers hold it 300 million legal and 200 million illegal.

    We have a multifaceted argument. Those who want no restrictions, those that want total removal, those that don’t want confiscation but want certain styles taken off the market, those who want both added restrictions for everyone and certain styles off the market. those that just want tighter restriction, and the last group that think the controls as they are are just fine.

    Each group wants less killing.

    Pick a side and put forth YOUR PROPOSAL. Don’t just state I want this, state how you would achieve what you want…. I’ll go first.

    I just want tighter restriction.

    Confiscation/turnin can’t be done. It would cause bloodshed and it would also cost almost every politician their job or enough of them that they may play around the edges with the rules, but will never pass any Law that really will effect 2nd Amendment. We can argue for years about why, but it’s a fact that must be faced honestly.

    So how do we reduce the number of murders by gun, and guns being used in the commision of crimes.

    There is a Federal Law that sets Mandatory Sentences for anyone using a gun in the commision of a crime. 5/15/30 year sentences for 1st, 2nd, and third offence. These Sentences according to the Law are to be served independently of any sentence received for the crime the firearm was used in.

    90% of violent crime is committed by 18% of the CRIMINAL POPULATION habitual offenders. Through the use of this law you will get two results over 10yrs. The first is a large portion of the habitual violent offenders will be off the streets for a minimum of 5 to 15 years. The second part is that actually prosecuting the Law for Ten years on EVERY case involving a firearm the other 82% of criminals won’t use a gun when they commit a crime. If they know that they’ll get a minimum of 5 with no parole… they won’t dare carry a gun. The average maximum time even a felon serves is 36mths the avg person convicted of murder if they don’t get in trouble in jail is 10yrs believe me the thought of a guranteed 5/15/30 gun crime drops to a rarity.

    The second and most difficult thing that needs to be done is addressing the mental health issue.

    I am in favor of red flag laws that set the procedure that you can’t do it without due process. A hearing before a Judge where evidence and testimony is given and the defendant is granted the ability to testify or present evidence in their defence.

    2nd If a person is committed they lose their right to firearms forever.

    If a person has a protection from abuse order put against them they lose their firearms and can only get their right back if they can convince a judge they can have them even if the PFA is removed.

    If that formula was followed gun crime would become a rarity within 20 years and it does it without violating anyone’s rights and there is nothing there that the gun community will object too.

  320. Japan suicide rate

    The numbers are glaring. Japan’s overall suicide rate is roughly 60 percent higher than the global average, a 2014 World Health Organization report noted. In 2014 alone, 25,000 Japanese people took their own lives — roughly 70 suicides every day.

    and…..

    Gun laws in Japan are some of the strictest in the entire world. There are laws against owning a gun, owning bullets, and discharging a firearm. Basically, any sort of interaction with guns is illegal in Japan, unless you’re licensed, or with the police or military.

    so much for suicide….. next

  321. So, 2/3 of ‘gun deaths’ in the US are suicides, and the other 1/3 is mainly black-perp. In Mexico and Brazil, gun deaths are murder. The case being made by the confiscators is thus based on a falsehood – but did they know that?

  322. Patrick Van Roy,
    //no selfpity unlike you I don’t whine about it to others I punch back.//

    For a man who claims he doesn’t ‘whine about it’ Patrick, you certainly do a lot of whining on these pages.

    //Dave and Phantom along with Noel show a continued pattern of abuse towards me//

    And you still haven’t answered my question. Where have I recently been ‘abusive’ towards you?

  323. Pat, there’s a number of things in your 1.47 so I’m going to reply just to the points relevant to my discussion.

    Europe is not saturated in guns as the US is, nor is it as violent.

    Thank you, you’ve just made the argument that most here are making. Limit the guns and you limit the violence.

    Pick a side and put forth YOUR PROPOSAL. Don’t just state I want this, state how you would achieve what you want….

    I’ve already done that a few times above but just to be clear I’ll do it again.

    Confiscation/turnin can’t be done. It would cause bloodshed and it would also cost almost every politician their job or enough of them that they may play around the edges with the rules, but will never pass any Law that really will effect 2nd Amendment.

    Well, first of all no one here apart from NY’er is talking about confiscation of all arms and to be clear, I’m referring to the limiting of access to semi auto weapons and not all weapons.

    As I’ve said above, all that needs to be done is offer an amnesty for two months of compensation for such weapons being surrendered and then prosecute anyone holding such weapons after the expiry date. It’s a matter of certain types of firearm being made illegal for the general public to have and a voluntary process to hand them in with prosecutions for anyone found to be in possession of such weapons after the amnesty expiry date.

    here is no ‘confiscation’ and there is also a precedant with such a law via the AWB.

    You state incorrectly above that such a law would ‘dismantle the Bill of Rights’ this simply isn’t true as I have stated above:

    I’m not asking anything. I’m stating that the Second Ammendment rights are incorporated into the BoR as a statement of fact and that limiting access to semi automatic weapons wouldn’t be a violation of that right much less ‘dismanteling’ the BoR as you claim.

    Am I incorrect?

    The Second Ammendmant states:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    The Second Ammendment doesn’t state that it’s the right of the people to keep and bear semi automatic arms therefore keeping and bearing .38 and .357 revolvers is absolutely within the letter and spirit of the Ammendment.

    And now a question for you:

    Do you think that militias as they presently exist are then unconstitutional in the sense that they’re not well regulated and should therefore be disarmed anddisbanded?

  324. Europe is not saturated in guns as the US is, nor is it as violent.

    You keep mentioning this, as if it’s a badge of honour or something. It really is not some thing you should be anything other than deeply concerned about.

    The US is saturated in Firearms realistic numbers hold it 300 million legal and 200 million illegal.

    A couple of days ago, you put this figure at 700 million.

    Pick a side and put forth YOUR PROPOSAL. Don’t just state I want this, state how you would achieve what you want….

    Lots of people here have already done this. The fact that you disagreed with all of their proposals is your issue, not theirs.

    I’ll go first.

    Hardly. People have been asking you for your solutions to this problem for years. Let’s see what they are…

    Confiscation/turnin can’t be done. It would cause bloodshed and it would also cost almost every politician their job or enough of them that they may play around the edges with the rules, but will never pass any Law that really will effect 2nd Amendment.

    So there is no new proposal, just a regurgitation of the ‘it can’t be done’ standpoint?

    We can argue for years about why, but it’s a fact that must be faced honestly.

    No, the reasons why are very simple. Gun owners, like you, keep repeating the ‘…from my cold, dead hands’ mantra. You cite your misunderstanding of your own 2nd amendment as your ‘right’ to own all types of guns, and you openly threaten terrorist violence against any person or group who tries, by legal means, to change the laws on gun ownership. You make threats of bloodshed and threaten your own government – who you elected – with this terrorist violence, and then you have the barefaced cheek to claim to be law-abiding citizens. But because you threaten the US with this terrorist violence, and because there are so many of you – a sizeable minority – ie voters, each politician knows that in order for him/her to rise up in the political world, they must curry your favour, so none of them – or at least the ones with political ambition – will speak loudly against you, which in turn makes your politicians and your government craven and weak, cowed by the violent threats from their own populace. Perhaps a psychologist might look at this and understand then why it is the US appears to be the most war-hungry country on the planet, given its insecurity when dealing with its own people, never mind foreigners.

    So how do we reduce the number of murders by gun, and guns being used in the commision of crimes.

    Change the laws on the type of guns people can buy/own, tighten up existing laws on gun ownership, psych-test each individual who applies for a gun license, call an amnesty on people out there who will very soon own illegal types of guns, then prosecute the hell out of anyone who flouts/ignores the new changes etc etc

    There is a Federal Law that sets Mandatory Sentences for anyone using a gun in the commision of a crime. 5/15/30 year sentences for 1st, 2nd, and third offence. These Sentences according to the Law are to be served independently of any sentence received for the crime the firearm was used in.

    Elect politicians and judges who have the balls to carry this through. Make it clear that from Alaska to the Florida Keys, the Bayou to Honolulu, if you use a gun to carry out a crime, you will face a minimum 5 years extra in jail, whether you are 18 or a 95 year-old veteran.

    The second and most difficult thing that needs to be done is addressing the mental health issue.

    Take money from your hyper-inflated defence budget and pump it into a free initiative to help those with mental health issues in your country. Defence begins at home, after all. I’m sure Israel could survive for a week without their blood money from your coffers.

    I am in favor of red flag laws that set the procedure that you can’t do it without due process. A hearing before a Judge where evidence and testimony is given and the defendant is granted the ability to testify or present evidence in their defence.

    Good idea, but in order for it to be fair, this needs to be backdated, so you, and all your current fellow gun-owners need to be the first ones in court. I’d say a sizeable percentage of you will immediately have your gun licenses revoked. You could lose your guns, given your obvious anger issues on display here week in and week out.

    2nd If a person is committed they lose their right to firearms forever.

    Agreed, but again – backdate it.

    If that formula was followed gun crime would become a rarity within 20 years

    20 years? And what about the thousands who will be killed in the meantime? Why not change the laws now and save a lot of those lives? Oh wait. Here’s why:

    and it does it without violating anyone’s rights

    the imagined ‘rights’ argument again. Meanwhile, screw the right to life of all those victims, right?

    and there is nothing there that the gun community will object too.

    And that’s really what this is about, isn’t it? It’s what I mentioned above. The gun community and their objections, which quickly become threats of bloodshed and terrorist violence. Mustn’t upset the gun community, because, well, they’ve got guns, and they have said they will use them.

    so much for suicide….. next

    Nice cavalier attitude towards suicide rates in other countries in order to protect your ‘right’ to keep semi-auto weapons in your house.

  325. Excellent posts Paul and Semi.

    A question to the American posters on here, do you think attitudes in the States towards gun ownership are changing for the better? Are more Americans supporting of restrictions and controls now than in the past? It appears to me as an outsider that they are.

  326. There is overwhelming and increasing support for some gun controls, including bans on assault weapons and universal background checks

    Getting bills passed will be hard due to frothing opposition from a minority of single issue fanatics ( And a president who flip-flops every day on the matter )

    https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-poll-americans-support-assault-weapons-ban-after-florida-shooting-2018-2/

  327. Dave -there has long been a majority in favor of more sensible gun control. The majority has increased (as per a recent Fox News poll). Despite this the anti gun control crowd tends to be more strident. It is also an issue that could destroy a Repulican office holder in much the same way a profile position would now end a Democrat’s prospects.

  328. In other words, we are fucked.

  329. This is a situation that screams for Nixon to China type presidential leadership. I don’t expect it.

    He doesn’t have it in him.

  330. Thanks Phantom and Mahons.

    For some reason I always thought the majority of Americans we’re actually in favour of no restrictions on gun ownership. However, I was chatting to an American from Maine, who was on holiday with his wife, when I was down south a couple of weeks ago, and he told me that that actually wasn’t the case. He said the majority of Americans are now in favour of much tighter restrictions when it comes to buying and owning guns.
    He also pointed out, as Mahons did, that this will not be an easy thing to change.

  331. There are some variations among regions – the views of folk in Rural Alabama Will not be the same As the views of people from San Francisco. But there is overwhelming Support for the things we speak of, even among gun owners, Most of whom are responsible or who try to be responsible

    I think that the one contribution of the honorable gentleman Is that he shows how completely unreasonable and how constantly argumentative The minority is, how in willing they are to listen to any fact based arguments of any kind

  332. How unwilling

  333. The US is saturated in Firearms realistic numbers hold it 300 million legal and 200 million illegal.

    A couple of days ago, you put this figure at 700 million.

    I looked back and found one typo of 700 and at least 5 instances where I said 500 even where I said 700 I broke it down into 200 illegal and 300 legal….. it’s called a typo

  334. I looked back and found one typo of 700 and at least 5 instances where I said 500 even where I said 700 I broke it down into 200 illegal and 300 legal….. it’s called a typo

    I’m glad this is the only fault you could find in what I wrote 😉

  335. Pick a side and put forth YOUR PROPOSAL. Don’t just state I want this, state how you would achieve what you want….

    Lots of people here have already done this. The fact that you disagreed with all of their proposals is your issue, not theirs.

    No people have been saying what they want NOT how they would achieve it…

    The President will pass an executive order to create and implement the Laws you want ?

    Congress will pass a new laws ?

    The police will do X ?

    The Army will do X ?

    etc etc etc….

    No you’ve been saying pass a law that does X and that will solve it. Well there is a thing called Enforcement, none of you say HOW YOU WILL ENFORCE what you want.

    The enforcement and execution of what you desire spell it out. Spell out how you will handle noncompliance to all your new little laws.

    Paul wants to put a moratorium on all semi-auto firearms… well that’s 90% of all the guns over 400 million when they don’t turn them in he wants to lock up what will be about 50 million people. Where is he going to put 50 million people and what is he going to do when the nation goes nuts that the federal government wrote a law making law abiding citizens criminals and then locked up 30-50 million…. How do you propose the government handle the consequences ?

    It’s called reality… please you all have said what you want… none of you have said how you will deal with the consequences nor how you will get to passing what you want…

    All this stuff that you people propose are changes to existing Law or creation of new law.

    All my proposals are already Federal Law on the mandatory sentencing, and the rest of my proposal are already Law in Pennsylvania nobody has do anything new other than enforce existing Law….

    so please flesh out the how of your ideas and in more detail ….. just pass a law is not a plan.

  336. I’m glad this is the only fault you could find in what I wrote 😉

    I’m still typing…..

  337. I am the only person on this website that understands the 2nd Amendment.

    It was designed as a backstop against Tyranny to guarantee the population can overthrow our own government.

    ” A well REGULATED militia…” the word REGULATED in this amendment means RUN a well run militia…. the wording is 16th century.

  338. Considering the respect here that everyone has for your intellect I suppose that settles it.

  339. the wording is 16th century.

    And applied to 16th century weaponry.

  340. I don’t make threats of violence, bloodshed, or terrorism.

    I state openly and honestly that the majority of all your positions will lead to civil war. The people will revolt.

    That is reality. I am only stating what will happen if you make all gun owners criminals by making the guns in their possession illegal they will react with violence…. we are not Europe we are not great britain. We are the most advanced culture in someways, but we are the most violent barbaric modern society on the planet. We kill each other regularly and over nothing… if you think going after the guns won’t cause violence you’ve no understanding of our culture.

    Saying this is NOT calling for it, it’s just stating the truth of what will happen.

  341. Pat, please check your mail.

  342. That is reality. I am only stating what will happen if you make all gun owners criminals by making the guns in their possession illegal they will react with violence…. we are not Europe we are not great britain. We are the most advanced culture in someways, but we are the most violent barbaric modern society on the planet. We kill each other regularly and over nothing… if you think going after the guns won’t cause violence you’ve no understanding of our culture.

    This is the very reason you should severely restrict access to/ ability to procure guns. I can’t believe you don’t understand that.

  343. ” The people ” will not ” revolt ”

    Some terrorist bums may attempt to shoot police, military or their fellow citizens if they don’t get everything that they want.

  344. I am the only person on this website that understands the 2nd Amendment

    I’ve linked to it’s ful text. Dispute the text.

    “A well REGULATED militia…” the word REGULATED in this amendment means RUN a well run militia…. the wording is 16th century.

    Much like your ‘dismantle the BoR I think that this is a contrived invention concocted to suit your narrative. Regulated has a pretty concrete definition, please supply credible links beyond your personal opinion which verifies what you claim above as fact

    Maybe as the wording of the Ammendment 16th century the weapons that it guarantees ownersip of should be 16th century too?

    No people have been saying what they want NOT how they would achieve it…[…]

    Well there is a thing called Enforcement, none of you say HOW YOU WILL ENFORCE what you want.

    I’ve repeatedly done both above but for the sake of clarification I’ll state it again:

    As I’ve said above, all that needs to be done is offer an amnesty for two months of compensation for such weapons being surrendered and then prosecute anyone holding such weapons after the expiry date. It’s a matter of certain types of firearm being made illegal for the general public to have and a voluntary process to hand them in with prosecutions for anyone found to be in possession of such weapons after the amnesty expiry date.

    As per the AWB.

  345. I’ve linked to it’s full text. Dispute the text

    I’ve quoted its full text

  346. Change the laws on the type of guns people can buy/own, tighten up existing laws on gun ownership, psych-test each individual who applies for a gun license, call an amnesty on people out there who will very soon own illegal types of guns, then prosecute the hell out of anyone who flouts/ignores the new changes etc etc

    You can’t change the laws for the reasons you list of our “cowed” politicians… if you were to try putting psych eval as part of the background check you’d be sued by a multitude of agencies… anything to do with evaluating anyones mental state in this country is treated with outrage they will let them liv, but god forbid you say they need a psych eval… so we can’t do it on the obviously crazy, but you want it required for the Law Abiding… yeah that wont cause a problem.

    and then you want to retroactively make 100 million people into criminals if they don’t turn them in and when 50 million refuse your going to lock them up…. Where and who is going to round them up?

  347. bear with me I’ll be bouncing in and out… I had a damn leak and now have a hole in my ceiling that I have to deal with…..

    Paul I’ll check in a few minutes

  348. Phantom, on August 22nd, 2019 at 2:51 PM Said: Edit Comment
    ” The people ” will not ” revolt ”

    Some terrorist bums may attempt to shoot police, military or their fellow citizens if they don’t get everything that they want.

    Wishful thinking

  349. You can’t change the laws for the reasons you list of our “cowed” politicians… if you were to try putting psych eval as part of the background check you’d be sued by a multitude of agencies… anything to do with evaluating anyones mental state in this country is treated with outrage they will let them liv, but god forbid you say they need a psych eval… so we can’t do it on the obviously crazy, but you want it required for the Law Abiding… yeah that wont cause a problem.

    and then you want to retroactively make 100 million people into criminals if they don’t turn them in and when 50 million refuse your going to lock them up…. Where and who is going to round them up?

    This is exactly what I’m talking about: a political class too weak and scared to change laws for the good, because of a minority threatening terrorist violence if they do so.

  350. Paul your post is up and tweeted

  351. Cheers Pat.

  352. I support gun sales to only police and military. It would be implemented by Congress passing a law to that effect. It may not be this year or next year but with Trump bounced out next year, soon after because the public will demand it as a way to stop the mass murders. After the law takes effect, the guns the police and military have would be placed on a list and anyone in possession of a gun not on the list would face prison. A buy-back program would be established for those guns not on the list. Ammo would only be sold to those with a gun on the list.

  353. Let me know what that law passes the Congress if you would.

  354. Patrick

    //Dave and Phantom along with Noel show a continued pattern of abuse towards me. Noel has gotten better, but Dave hasn’t and Phantom goes out of his way to instigate, and then whines when I retaliate.//

    Patrick, for the third time I’m asking you, where have I recently been abusive towards you?

  355. Phantom

    “Let me know what that law passes the Congress if you would.” It is in my post. After Trump is bounced out of office, ie, soon after January 2021.

  356. Good luck with that.

    Even when the Dems controlled everything there was no move to this sort of thing

  357. This has been a great thread…. I want to thank everyone for the open debate.

    I am regretfully sure this topic will rear it’s head again. Sorry I bailed yesterday…. pipe burst hole in the damn ceiling, just a mess….

    357 comments and civility reigns…. that long on this topic is amazing.

    I will come back and see if there’s anything I haven’t responded too.

  358. Patrick

    I will come back and see if there’s anything I haven’t responded too.

    Here is something you haven’t responded to Patrick.

    Dave and Phantom along with Noel show a continued pattern of abuse towards me. Noel has gotten better, but Dave hasn’t and Phantom goes out of his way to instigate, and then whines when I retaliate.

    Patrick, where have I recently been abusive towards you?