- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 19,500
- Reaction score
- 5,458
- Location
- Wokingham, England
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Another dodge... what is "more control" what does that mean, specifically?
What do you do with legal gun owners now?
It's such a simple question that your ilk always seem to have trouble answering.
Your criminals are getting their weapons via legal gun owners in the first place as no doubt did the perp in the OP. Tracking and monitoring firearms would at least be a start including far more stringent background checks. Making firearms considerably more expensive wouldn't be a bad idea either. You doubtless aren't even prepared to countenance even these very minor changes
Tracking and monitoring with background checks? we already do that. how do you want them to be "more stringent" specifically?
"Making guns more expensive"? so it this so only rich white people like me can afford them?
What would any of these things do to the current market especially the used and black (illegal) market (which are to completely separate things.)?
No you don't. Its far too easy for a criminal to get a gun from a legal gun owner with no questions asked. I suspect such transactions take place hundreds or maybe even thousands of times every day
Or that the criminals can't
Unless you cut off this market from its original legal sources by making those sources more expensive and more highly regulated then there will be nothing you can do. There clearly isn't the political will to do that so the killing will continue.
The plain fact is you guys are prepared to pay the price in blood for the continuance of this lethal this fetish as long as that blood isn't yours
So no answer?
I didn;t think so, just more speculation and fear peddling.
Because criminals ALWAYS pay! and when they do they pay RETAIL! /facepalm
So you still can't answer "more regulated". you can't speak to your plan or idea of what to do with the millions of legal gun owners property. you speak in empty platitudes.
As usual, your ilk, has no spine to say what they really want to do.
BTW, you aren't anti-gun, you are very pro-gun because you are going to need government agents with guns to come after mine.... we all know you won't come, you'll send others.
The facts differ.
In Europe gun killings are around 40 - 50 times lower per capita than the US due to far more stringent gun control. Police shootings are as a consequence very rare
Am I wrong then ?
I seriously doubt that given the criminal fraternity are normally from the less affluent part of the social spectrum
More regulated means less guns and far more stringent vetting of owners and those in their households too.
As usual your ilk has no spine to admit why they really have these weapons, when some have arsenals that would defeat a Zulu onslaught. How great must be your personal 'inadequacies' that you need these sorts of compensations
Uh huh....
'Go ahead punk 'make my day' ....right :lol:
Again, with the politically invented gun killing number, adjust homicide you're at best 3 times lower, which tracks historically for the last century regardless of gun legislation.
But that doesn't sound as dramatic now does it?
Do you have any evidence to support such a claim ?
you are not anti-gun you are pro-fascism, pro-authoritarianism pro-guns in the hands of governments.
Well once you come out with that sort of drivel as some kind justification you are clearly too far gone here to be reasoned with
The UN intentional homicide rate is publically available for your browsing at leisure
And it clearly shows your homicide is 4.7 times ours with nearly three quarters of those involving the use of a firearm. As I've said already if you were to remove the firearms killings from your overall homicide statistics your homicide rate would be pretty similar to that of most other developed countries
cue: "make excuses to convince myself that it's not that I don't have an answer is that the other guy doesn't deserve it, use that as a reason 'not' to answer simple questions posed"....
Right on time.
:lol:
Once you invoke big government tyranny BS as an some kind of excuse then you have really gone off the deep end. What other response did you expect ? :roll:
If you remove criminal on criminal gun homicides, we'd have the same rate, you claimed I couldn't do that, now you do this? :lol:
fact: if you don't have a criminal record, your are no more likely to be shot, than someone in the UK,.
I expected you to answer my simple question. the fact you think you can do what you want without big government tyranny, suggests dishonesty or overt naivety on your part.
which is it?
Oh I forgot . Only the US has criminals right ? :lol:
we are talking about the evil of guns, I'm pointing out in the US, guns, even illegal guns tend to be used between persons of the criminal element, upwards of 96% of the time.
are you having trouble keeping up?
Common sense
And why is it that isn't reflected within our criminal fraternity too then ? As I linked earlier (for our sins) the UK actually has a worse per capita drugs problem than the US
so, it is due to "common sense" that you are unable to address my simple question. Noted.
No its due to common sense that I can see all you have left is to try and keep engaging the same circular arguments because you don't like my answers
So you are suggesting guns turn people into kill crazy homicidal maniacs?
are you saying that's the lynch pin?
really?
I'm saying that easy access to guns makes killing far too easy be that by accident or design. The unfortunate officer in the OP being just another tragic example of the collateral damage such a policy helps facilitate.
My position gets no more complicated than that
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?