Enough is enough... Everyone here should contact Sen. McConnell...

[JLB777]

1. People like you complain that restrictive gun laws will harm “law abiding citizens” who wish to purchase guns....right?

You don’t know me or what I believe.

You just kinda make stuff as you go along with broad brush blanket statements to cover a large audience.


Here is the foundation of the gun laws r no gun issue.


Guns are used to enforce the law.

Laws are made for order.

Order and peace are good.

Disorder and lawlessness are bad.

Guns are used to enforce the law.

Law abiding citizens want to protect their families.

If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then the only people that will have guns in society are criminals.

Only law abiding citizens will obey the law to surrender their guns.

Criminals will not.


Now that you have been educated, please go and enlighten all the people you know.


JLB

 

[Allandavid]

You don’t know me or what I believe.

You just kinda make stuff as you go along with broad brush blanket statements to cover a large audience.


Here is the foundation of the gun laws r no gun issue.


Guns are used to enforce the law.

Laws are made for order.

Order and peace are good.

Disorder and lawlessness are bad.

Guns are used to enforce the law.

Law abiding citizens want to protect their families.

If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then the only people that will have guns in society are criminals.

Only law abiding citizens will obey the law to surrender their guns.

Criminals will not.


Now that you have been educated, please go and enlighten all the people you know.


JLB

Won’t answer the questions, huh..?

Figures...

 

[Speedwell]

You don’t know me or what I believe.

You just kinda make stuff as you go along with broad brush blanket statements to cover a large audience.


Here is the foundation of the gun laws r no gun issue.


Guns are used to enforce the law.

Laws are made for order.

Order and peace are good.

Disorder and lawlessness are bad.

Guns are used to enforce the law.

Law abiding citizens want to protect their families.

If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then the only people that will have guns in society are criminals.

Only law abiding citizens will obey the law to surrender their guns.

Criminals will not.


Now that you have been educated, please go and enlighten all the people you know.


JLB

And any kind of gun law at all amounts to confiscation. Right. So go ahead and caress your imitation army gun and dream your Rambo dreams about what would happen if the government tried to take it away from you.

 

[Allandavid]

You don’t know me or what I believe.

Ummmm....that’s why I asked questions...! In case you weren’t aware, those are the things with these....?...on the end............there you go...

You just kinda make stuff as you go along with broad brush blanket statements to cover a large audience.

No dear....I asked you some questions....those are the things....oh, never mind, you obviously don’t get it....

Here is the foundation of the gun laws r no gun issue.

Pardon...? That doesn’t look like English...?

Guns are used to enforce the law.

No...they’re used to shoot things...or people. You’re off to a very bad start...

Laws are made for order.

Not necessarily. Look to your history...

Order and peace are good.

“Good” for whom...? (Psst...that was one of those question thingies...) There was a very ‘orderly’ law in Germany that restricted Jews from owning property. Was that good? There were ‘orderly’ laws in your country that forbade black people from drinking water here or sitting there. Were they good?

Disorder and lawlessness are bad.

Hmmmm...now I’m thinking about your War of Independence.....definitely ‘bad’....right?

Guns are used to enforce the law.

Nope...that’s twice you’ve got that one wrong...

Law abiding citizens want to protect their families.

Hey...a rare win! Good for you...!

If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then the only people that will have guns in society are criminals.

And the police....

And the armed forces...

Only law abiding citizens will obey the law to surrender their guns.

Criminals will not.

And how many gun massacres have been caused by people recognised as criminals? I’m betting very close to zero.....

Now that you have been educated, please go and enlighten all the people you know.

That was an education...!??

I want my money back...!

 

[renniks]

It won't stop the most determined, but it will stop some. Why make it easy?

Do you really think civilian society is well served by having devices like this legally available for sale (used by the Dayton shooter)?

Why, because it looks scary to you?

I'm still waiting for you to show how it made any difference when they weren't available.

 

[renniks]

Oh good grief.....! Ok, baby steps then.....

1. People like you complain that restrictive gun laws will harm “law abiding citizens” who wish to purchase guns....right?

2. Ok...now, let’s suppose you have 100 people who want to buy a gun and, at this time, none of them have committed any crimes. You would classify them as “law abiding”...right?

3. However, one of those “law abiding citizens”, unknown to you, harbours a desire to kill people. Never acted on it before, never had even a parking ticket. But once he gets his hands on a gun....

4. So, if a law were introduced to restrict availability to guns, it would not ONLY disadvantage “law abiding citizens” (of which he is one at this point)....it would also prevent a potential murderous madman from getting a gun...!

I don’t think I can make it any simpler....

You forget all the times that those citizens use guns to protect themselves and their families, which saves way more lives then are ever taken by one that goes off the rails. C'mon, a "murderous madman" is going to find a way to kill. 911 proved that you don't need guns to kill lots of people. The Oklahoma city bombing was done with what? diesel fuel and fertilizer? Are we going to ban fertilizer next? You want to throw away the 2nd amendment, move to England where you can't even carry a pocket knife.

 

[Albion]

Of course a gun-less person bent on mass murder will throw a bomb into the gathering or something else like that.

The incidents in which the killer was stopped short because someone in the gathering used some counter-force on him are generally forgotten. It's only the ones that rolled up the biggest body counts--because no one had any way of stopping the guy--that are well remembered.

 

[wing2000]

Why, because it looks scary to you?

I'm still waiting for you to show how it made any difference when they weren't available.

Already answered.
And I see I won't get a real answer from you for the following:

Do you really think civilian society is well served by having devices like this legally available for sale (used by the Dayton shooter)?

 

[FenderTL5]

Reducing the lethality of legally available weapons (including high capacity magazines) will save lives.

An Everytown original analysis of mass shootings from 2009 to 2017 revealed that, of the incidents with known magazine capacity data, 58 percent involved firearms with high-capacity magazines.7 These shootings resulted in twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries per incident on average compared to those that did not include the use of high-capacity magazines.*

*The 35 incidents with confirmed use of high-capacity magazines resulted in 10.1 deaths and 19 injuries per incident on average, compared to the 4.6 deaths and 1.3 injuries on average that resulted from the 25 incidents confirmed to have not included the use of high-capacity magazines.

https://everytownresearch.org/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines/#foot_note_8

(more)
Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–0.39).
CONCLUSION
Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.

 

[FenderTL5]

Dayton
On Sunday, officials said that 30 seconds after the gunman fired the first shots, he was killed by an officer in front of the Ned Peppers bar.
"It's fundamentally problematic to have that level of weaponry in a civilian environment, unregulated, is problematic," Dayton police chief Richard Biehl said at a Monday morning news conference.
I agree with the police chief.

 

[renniks]

Already answered.
And I see I won't get a real answer from you for the following:

Do you really think civilian society is well served by having devices like this legally available for sale (used by the Dayton shooter)?

Yes.

 

[renniks]

Yes.

"We know, because of research directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that guns are used 16 to 100 times more often to protect life than to take life. That means there are a whole lot more “guns save lives stories” not being reported by USA TODAY.
But as much as the USA TODAY Editorial Board wants to discount the idea of the “good guy with a gun,” let’s not forget that almost 90% of police agree that mass shootings would be “reduced” or “avoided altogether” by the presence of legally armed citizens." Gun Owners of America: Guns save lives every day

 

[The Faceless]

Banning guns will definitely stop criminals from getting guns to murder people.

Just like murder being illegal stopped people from murdering.

Just like prohibition stopped people from drinking.

Just like heroin being illegal stopped addicts.

Just like abortion being illegal stopped abortion.

 

[FenderTL5]

"We know, because of research directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that guns are used 16 to 100 times more often to protect life than to take life. That means there are a whole lot more “guns save lives stories” not being reported by USA TODAY.
But as much as the USA TODAY Editorial Board wants to discount the idea of the “good guy with a gun,” let’s not forget that almost 90% of police agree that mass shootings would be “reduced” or “avoided altogether” by the presence of legally armed citizens." Gun Owners of America: Guns save lives every day

Would you advocate arming everyone in the cities of New Orleans, Memphis, and Birmingham (the top three for gun violence). Do you think a boxcar full of free guns would be a good idea for 10th ranked Chicago? Everybody gets a gun...

 

[renniks]

Would you advocate arming everyone in the cities of New Orleans, Memphis, and Birmingham (the top three for gun violence). Do you think a boxcar full of free guns would be a good idea for 10th ranked Chicago? Everybody gets a gun...

I would support arming the law abiding citizens who want to be able to protect themselves in those cities and training them. Not everybody legally can get a gun. What's your alternative? You're not going to destroy every gun in the world, and taking guns away from legally armed citizens, only compounds the problem. I would say that nearly every house in my area contains guns. We have millions of people in the woods with the guns on the first day of deer season, and fatalities are extremely rare. The guns are not the problem...the intent of evil men is.

 

[wing2000]

"We know, because of research directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that guns are used 16 to 100 times more often to protect life than to take life. That means there are a whole lot more “guns save lives stories” not being reported by USA TODAY.
But as much as the USA TODAY Editorial Board wants to discount the idea of the “good guy with a gun,” let’s not forget that almost 90% of police agree that mass shootings would be “reduced” or “avoided altogether” by the presence of legally armed citizens." Gun Owners of America: Guns save lives every day

Who suggested taking away the guns from the good guys?

 

[FenderTL5]

I would support arming the law abiding citizens who want to be able to protect themselves in those cities and training them. Not everybody legally can get a gun. .

So your answer is 'no'?
You don't think arming everyone, criminal and non-criminal alike is a good idea?

 

[renniks]

So your answer is 'no'?
You don't think arming everyone, criminal and non-criminal alike is a good idea?

The criminals already have guns. If a person commits a felony with a firearm, he loses his right to own one legally.

 

[renniks]

Who suggested taking away the guns from the good guys?

You can constantly suggested restricting what guns the "good guys" can possess. I can find you plenty of instances where legal gun owners have used Ak's for home defense if you like.

 

[FenderTL5]

The criminals already have guns.

That's certainly the premise of your previous arguments..

If a person commits a felony with a firearm, he loses his right to own one legally.

Doesn't matter, based on the previous sentence. If they already have guns, the right to have one is moot.
Do you advocate arming everyone? By everyone I mean all.