How can anyone believe in gun control?

[TurtleDude]

You can buy AR15s at gun stores: these are military grade weapons specifically designed for Military combat.

As Paul Newman once said: "try again"

what a moronic comment. the Colt 1911 and the Beretta M9 are actually sold in the EXACT configuration as those used in the military. DO you want to ban those too

your arguments are so stupid we laugh at how dishonest they are.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I don't get not letting former felons have guns. They served their time. If they aren't safe to be released into the general population, than they shouldn't be released. If they are safe to be released, than they should be able to legally get guns.

Non-violent felons (caveat : read, "did not use a firearm in commission of said felony") denied rights after paying their debt to society. That's personally a major peeve I have. If they used a firearm in the crime they should still be able to petition for restoration. Other than that, all rights should return with them to society.

 

[jet57]

Just to be sure that I understand your line of reasoning:

You want AR15s and "other" (as yet undefined) banned because terrorists and the insane use them to kill people in mass shootings, but...

...you don't want guns that work just like AR15s, like an M1 Carbine, banned, even though those have been used by terrorists or the insane in mass shootings;
...you don't want any other guns like revolvers, other handguns, .22 rifles, bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns or double barrel shotguns banned, even though those have been used by terrorists or the insane in mass shootings;
...you don't want access to knives, hammers, gasoline or rental trucks restricted, even though those have been used by terrorists or the insane in mass murders.

Basically, you don't care if anyone is killed in a mass shooting or other type of mass murder as long as it isn't with a rifle with certainly industrial design?

Street gang weapons: whadd'ya think?

 

[Rucker61]

what a moronic comment. the Colt 1911 and the Beretta M9 are actually sold in the EXACT configuration as those used in the military. DO you want to ban those too

your arguments are so stupid we laugh at how dishonest they are.

What's more scary?

1. "Designed for the military" but rejected as not suitable for military use, or
2. Not designed for the military, but adopted by the military for combat use.

1. AR-15
2. Remington 700, Beretta M9, Glock 17, etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Street gang weapons: whadd'ya think?

View attachment 67214761

you wanna ban the zip lock baggie too? far more of them are used in drug traffic than those firearms. I think the bottom firearm looks like a GEN III Glock which is the standard police sidearm for about half the police agencies in the USA

the carbine is not an AR 15 BTW-the magazine release lever is not consistent with such a rifle.

 

[TurtleDude]

What's more scary?

1. "Designed for the military" but rejected as not suitable for military use, or
2. Not designed for the military, but adopted by the military for combat use.

1. AR-15
2. Remington 700, Beretta M9, Glock 17, etc.

Jet's gun arguments are all dishonest, stupid and rejected by anyone who understands the topic but he thinks he will make stupid people think a firearm is "more dangerous" because it was actually designed for the military

the ar 15 was not specifically designed for a military acquisition but the military adopted it and refined it to the M16. The AR-10 IIRC was created to compete for the service weapon trials that replaced the MI. The Garand Rifle and the MI carbine were specifically designed to meet a service weapon acquisition. The TOMMY GUN was not designed specifically for the military and its first buyers were not military. Jet's characterization is like the rest of his crap on gun issues-completely erroneous and designed to confuse the low witted.

 

[Rucker61]

Jet's gun arguments are all dishonest, stupid and rejected by anyone who understands the topic but he thinks he will make stupid people think a firearm is "more dangerous" because it was actually designed for the military

the ar 15 was not specifically designed for a military acquisition but the military adopted it and refined it to the M16. The AR-10 IIRC was created to compete for the service weapon trials that replaced the MI. The Garand Rifle and the MI carbine were specifically designed to meet a service weapon acquisition. The TOMMY GUN was not designed specifically for the military and its first buyers were not military. Jet's characterization is like the rest of his crap on gun issues-completely erroneous and designed to confuse the low witted.

I think the only person Jet manages to convince with his arguments is himself, and that's worrisome in and of itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the only person Jet manages to convince with his arguments is himself, and that's worrisome in and of itself.

as I said earlier-rather than fight against the rape of his rights by the assholes who run California, he tries to justify the idiocy and tries to convince us that we should be subjected to the same nonsense he lives under. as I said, he's like that fox telling us why we should let our tails get cut off too

 

[ataraxia]

Because you can't possibly prevent anyone selling anything to anyone else.

Huh? So why don't we just let the drug dealers sell by the local elementary school? Can't be helped, right?

 

[ataraxia]

Maybe if we spent more attention on this like mental health in this country.. rather than gun control, and demonizing and punishing anyone with mental health issues in this country by taking away their property and assuming they are a "threat to society"...

We could actually address what caused suicide and prevent a significant number of them.

but no.. we have to concentrate on gun control.

I don't know where you are drawing that conclusion from, but all studies show that there is a powerful inverse risk between prevalence of guns in a geographic area and incidence of successfully completed suicides.

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

 

[TurtleDude]

Huh? So why don't we just let the drug dealers sell by the local elementary school? Can't be helped, right?

do you really not get it

we arrest drug dealers doing this if we catch them. Using the moronic logic in your posts, if a drug dealer sells contraband drugs, we are ALLOWING That if we don't catch him

its illegal for felons to buy or possess guns. just because some are NOT CAUGHT is not the same as ALLOWING THAT.

get a clue

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know where you are drawing that conclusion from, but all studies show that there is a powerful inverse risk between prevalence of guns in a geographic area and incidence of successfully completed suicides.


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

the study was funded by bannerrhoids who wanted the study to damn gun ownership.

we know that places that have gun bans often have high rates of suicide so that study proves nothing. BTW suicides are not a crime issue and not a valid reason to ban people from owning stuff they might use to kill themselves intentionally with

 

[Rucker61]

Huh? So why don't we just let the drug dealers sell by the local elementary school? Can't be helped, right?

We can't stop every single time it happens, but anyone caught in possession can be prosecuted. You can't prosecute people who can own guns legally if they get it in a private sale because you can't prove that it isn't a legal loan or a gun they had before the law passed. Since it's legal to own guns, there's no probable cause to even allow a cop to inspect the firearm.

 

[TurtleDude]

We can't stop every single time it happens, but anyone caught in possession can be prosecuted. You can't prosecute people who can own guns legally if they get it in a private sale because you can't prove that it isn't a legal loan or a gun they had before the law passed. Since it's legal to own guns, there's no probable cause to even allow a cop to inspect the firearm.

gun banners want to control or ban every possible method that could POSSIBLY lead to a felon getting a gun not because they think it will disarm criminals but it allows them to pretend they are DOING SOMETHING about armed criminals while hassling and harassing honest people

few criminals get guns from people they don't know. Most criminals get guns from other criminals or family friends who can buy the guns legally. Yes its illegal to give or sell someone you know or have reason to know is a felon and most all straw purchasers know that they are providing a criminal with a handgun. IN many cases they know that the person engages in narcotics violations etc. in some cases, the straw purchaser does too but has yet to have a felony record or other disqualifying features.

 

[Crimefree]

well if people would understand reality they would know that gun control is successful in the sense it does exactly what its proponents want

1) it panders to the stupid

2) it harasses honest gun owners

why would bannerrhoids stop doing stuff that gets them the adoration of the stupid and harasses the people whom bannerrhoids hate?

Excellent points but the reality is you know what the objectives of the movement are but that is not the delusion of the useful stooges who advocate gun control. In their case they are simply acting on their induced fears in order to produce a safer country. They think we are a danger to public safety which more importantly includes their own.

Every one of them thinks they are doing a public service when in reality they are endangering the public's lives.

 

[Crimefree]

gun banners want to control or ban every possible method that could POSSIBLY lead to a felon getting a gun not because they think it will disarm criminals but it allows them to pretend they are DOING SOMETHING about armed criminals while hassling and harassing honest people

few criminals get guns from people they don't know. Most criminals get guns from other criminals or family friends who can buy the guns legally. Yes its illegal to give or sell someone you know or have reason to know is a felon and most all straw purchasers know that they are providing a criminal with a handgun. IN many cases they know that the person engages in narcotics violations etc. in some cases, the straw purchaser does too but has yet to have a felony record or other disqualifying features.

They absolute idiocy and impossibility of trying to rehabilitate or prevent criminals from committing crime by denial of an object is a wide spread mystery to me. Do we have a nation of people who simply cannot think for themselves?

 

[Crimefree]

Huh? So why don't we just let the drug dealers sell by the local elementary school? Can't be helped, right?

I see you have forgotten those drugs are already banned and you are looking at the wonderful results of that ban. Naturally a ban brought about by people who are to ignorant or incapable of thinking for themselves.

What do you propose we do to stop drugs sales? More idiotic laws or find out what drives people to take drugs?

What do you propose for crime? Banning guns or restricting them or finding out what causes crime?

 

[jimbo]

You can buy AR15s at gun stores: these are military grade weapons specifically designed for Military combat.

As Paul Newman once said: "try again"

The AR 15 is a term used to describe a variety of weapons, virtually none of which are specifically designed for military combat. The exception would be the original Armalite 15. A selective fire version. The rest are specifically designed for the sporting trade.

 

[TurtleDude]

They absolute idiocy and impossibility of trying to rehabilitate or prevent criminals from committing crime by denial of an object is a wide spread mystery to me. Do we have a nation of people who simply cannot think for themselves?

we have two issues

a large number of slow witted sheeple and a small but powerful and vocal assholes who manipulate the sheeple with claims of providing them with more safety

 

[jet57]

The AR 15 is a term used to describe a variety of weapons, virtually none of which are specifically designed for military combat. The exception would be the original Armalite 15. A selective fire version. The rest are specifically designed for the sporting trade.

An AR15 is a military grade weapon that is modified for public sale that has shown up as a weapon of choice, as have others of these models in both terrorist attacks and home grown mass killings. It's very simple and there's no need to complicate the issue with nitpicking.

 

[Vox]

An AR15 is a military grade weapon that is modified for public sale that has shown up as a weapon of choice, as have others of these models in both terrorist attacks and home grown mass killings. It's very simple and there's no need to complicate the issue with nitpicking.

The AR15 is not military grade simply because it does not allow for a fully automatic function.

You seem to be thinking of an "AR15 TYPE of weapon" in some of your inaccurate statements.

Similar to AR15 but not the same. Also and less pejoratively known as a modern rifle.

 

[jet57]

Huh? So why don't we just let the drug dealers sell by the local elementary school? Can't be helped, right?

These gun guys are never going to admit that you and I, like others who venture into these guns threads are actually right. We show them credible primary and secondary source documentation even form the Supreme Court itself, and they will still deny, deflect, misrepresent, and otherwise just flat out lie in order to protect their obsession with their guns and their modified and very particular version of the second amendment. So don't get discouraged or angry over their nonsense. Just keep pouring good questions and proofs that show everybody how wrong these gun people really are.

 

[Crimefree]

I don't know where you are drawing that conclusion from, but all studies show that there is a powerful inverse risk between prevalence of guns in a geographic area and incidence of successfully completed suicides.


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), Sheez....

In the United States, suicides outnumber homicides almost two to one. Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths—about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts—is that so many could be prevented. Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms.

So we turn guns are efficient into guns cause this or we can expect a reduction if guns are reduced. Now this incredible conclusion must be matched by a simple comparison. We can reduce vehicle deaths if we reduce the number of vehicles. Do you not think that brilliant? Did you read this piece of crap?

Harvard medical is like Mother Jones published it. That study has been refuted dozens of time here and does not stand up to peer review. There is not even a correlation between increased levels of firearm ownership and increased crime or suicide.

Now let me give you two studies you need to read. You are welcome to try and find any facts which refute either but I know I am probably wasting my time.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE, A CRITICAL REVIEW
Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/1#iv

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

On every single gun control intervention the result was the same. No credible evidence and the is what gun control is a big lie from beginning to end.

I bet this means nothing to you.

 

[Vox]

These gun guys are never going to admit that you and I, like others who venture into these guns threads are actually right. We show them credible primary and secondary source documentation even form the Supreme Court itself, and they will still deny, deflect, misrepresent, and otherwise just flat out lie in order to protect their obsession with their guns and their modified and very particular version of the second amendment. So don't get discouraged or angry over their nonsense. Just keep pouring good questions and proofs that show everybody how wrong these gun people really are.

If your inaccurate statements about the AR15 are an example of your expertise I'd suggest you go back to school on gun issues.

:lamo :mrgreen: :lamo

 

[jet57]

The AR15 is not military grade simply because it does not allow for a fully automatic function.

You seem to be thinking of an "AR15 TYPE of weapon" in some of your inaccurate statements.

Similar to AR15 but not the same. Also and less pejoratively known as a modern rifle.

Nonsense. The AR series, save for the 5 and 7, like the AR 15 Sporter of 1973, modeled on the M16, are military grade combat weapons - full stop. "AR type" is a general use phrase to cover such military weaponry that is used in the incidences we're talking about and fall under the general description of AR "Assault Weapons" which is an accepted term used to categorize such weaponry as "military in purpose". And before you go on with yet another silly litmus test, ask yourself this very important - to your issue - question: were the founders who wrote and passed the second amendment experts in weaponry and flint and powder, and range and velocity and metal? So this stupidity of "if you don't know guns, you can't credibly comment" crap, just doesn't wash. Members of the Supreme Court are not firearms experts either. They just decide what is and what is not constitutional based on evidence.