Lets have a rational discussion about guns

[Torqaholic]

Originally Posted by bsmith

serial numbers on bullets?

uh...how?

...

Not to mention it would promote murder. The main thing preventing criminals from killing is the probability of getting caught. This bullet ID thing lowers that probability because if you want to get away with it all you'd need to do is steal somebody elses bullets (or buy them on the black market) and figure out when the patsy has no alibi. Easy peasy, I might even that give it a shot. I know a few oxygen thieves this planet would be better off without.

It's not going to catch one honest person using a gun to commit a crime because they call the cops themselves after killing someone

[Torqaholic]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

That's not the worst...by far.

There was, at one point, a proposal to make the gun laser engrave the guns serial number on the bullet as it was fired.

There are a few liberal hellholes that force gun owners to submit a fired bullet and casing. They are then cataloged onto a police computer. Theory is they can match these from a crime scene to the gun that fired them. And sure as shooting science has the ability to do that... The truth is they've never solved a crime using it yet and it cost millions of dollars to install and maintain

[Torqaholic]

Has any response in this thread been rational to you?

Somehow I doubt it

[Taurus]

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Torqaholic

Has any response in this thread been rational to you?

Somehow I doubt it

I tried my best in my first response, but when the OP misses the mark on rational, it's difficult to respond in a way that is any moreso...

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Broken Wind

This is a perfect example of why liberal policies are born of futility and destined to fail. You try to regulate things without understanding your subject matter.

...and we have a winner.

These gun control idiots throw around terms like assault rifle, AK-47 (in the case of the dumbass president), cop killer, etc for dramatic effect but I would be willing to bet absolutely any amount of money that an overwhelming majority couldn't pick an AK-47 out of a lineup.
I'd also take the bet that the same majority thinks that the M4s, AKs etc that are currently legal are full auto like they see in movies...

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

...and we have a winner.

These gun control idiots throw around terms like assault rifle, AK-47 (in the case of the dumbass president), cop killer, etc for dramatic effect but I would be willing to bet absolutely any amount of money that an overwhelming majority couldn't pick an AK-47 out of a lineup.
I'd also take the bet that the same majority thinks that the M4s, AKs etc that are currently legal are full auto like they see in movies...

Ask someone in favor of the assault weapon ban exactly what it banned if you want to see just how clueless they are.

[Torqaholic]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Ask someone in favor of the assault weapon ban exactly what it banned if you want to see just how clueless they are.

That's what worried me about the last ban, that they were going to figure out it didn't actually make guns less dangerous or less likely to be used in a crime

[SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

bingo

laws only hurt those that abide by them.

Plus, a basic principle ignored with these laws..."The RIGHT to bear arms shall NOT be infringed."

Oh yeah, "private property" is JUST THAT- PRIVATE PROPERTY! Keep your governing hands OFF!

[DJ_Critterus]

I apologize for not reading through the thread. Jsut the title and who posted it had me laughing my ass off.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by 78SA

I would hope Phil in the course of his work heard/saw/thought up and idea to help stop violent crime and came here with an open mind to discuss the merits of those ideas. I would also hope that he would read some replies that make sense and not just attack him and see where his ideas don't work or maybe could be changed so they would work. My own personal opinion is that they won't work to stop violent crime since criminals don't obey laws anyway.

What I'm taking away from this thread is that most simply are unwilling to compromise. Many of the left want guns eliminated from society, many on the right want no restrictions on guns whatsoever.

I thought what I presented was a realistic compromise. In fact, I still do. It seems the only retort is that criminals ignore the law so there would be no net decrease in gun violence. I disagree with this position.

What conservatives and gun rights advocates fail to realize is that the public is getting fed up with the status quo. When your guys are in power, nothing is done to address these kinds of problems. Then when my guys get in power and enact legislation, all the sudden your side is full of ideas about how you could do it better without so many rules. Just like what happened with the health care bill.

The writing is on the wall. If your side is unwilling to compromise and doesn't do something to address the problem, don't be surprised when the public has had enough and votes in politicians who will do something about it.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

What I'm taking away from this thread is that most simply are unwilling to compromise. Many of the left want guns eliminated from society, many on the right want no restrictions on guns whatsoever.

I thought what I presented was a realistic compromise. In fact, I still do. It seems the only retort is that criminals ignore the law so there would be no net decrease in gun violence. I disagree with this position.

What conservatives and gun rights advocates fail to realize is that the public is getting fed up with the status quo. When your guys are in power, nothing is done to address these kinds of problems. Then when my guys get in power and enact legislation, all the sudden your side is full of ideas about how you could do it better without so many rules. Just like what happened with the health care bill.

The writing is on the wall. If your side is unwilling to compromise and doesn't do something to address the problem, don't be surprised when the public has had enough and votes in politicians who will do something about it.

What I am taking from this thread is that you do not want to have a discussion with those of you that tried to actually address your points...which I thought I did.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

What I am taking from this thread is that you do not want to have a discussion with those of you that tried to actually address your points...which I thought I did.

I said most, not all.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I said most, not all.

But you have yet to continue the discussion. You took the excuse that some people think your ideas are stupid and avoided the rest of the discussion.

And...honestly, some of your ideas are over the top. I called that out in my reply. And most people are going to jump all over those.

[Broken Wind]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Would this end all gun crime? No, but I'm sure it would start to make a dent on the tens of thousands of gun related deaths.

So why don't you tell us exactly HOW your proposed regs will do this?

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Broken Wind

So why don't you tell us exactly HOW your proposed regs will do this?

Because THIS time, those criminals are gonna OBEY these motherfucking laws.

THAT'S how.

[Sea Six]

Like this:

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by TxAg

The day YOUR side starts to really ratch down on gun and ammunition ownership is the day the violent 2nd American revolution begins. Mark my words.

I fear no war with the liberals.


Only 1 side is armed.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

What I'm taking away from this thread is that most simply are unwilling to compromise. Many of the left want guns eliminated from society, many on the right want no restrictions on guns whatsoever.

I thought what I presented was a realistic compromise. In fact, I still do. It seems the only retort is that criminals ignore the law so there would be no net decrease in gun violence. I disagree with this position.

What conservatives and gun rights advocates fail to realize is that the public is getting fed up with the status quo. When your guys are in power, nothing is done to address these kinds of problems. Then when my guys get in power and enact legislation, all the sudden your side is full of ideas about how you could do it better without so many rules. Just like what happened with the health care bill.

The writing is on the wall. If your side is unwilling to compromise and doesn't do something to address the problem, don't be surprised when the public has had enough and votes in politicians who will do something about it.

I addressed your ideas and I still have not heard how you think they will do anything but make it harder on law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. You need look no farther than Washington, DC, where no one except law enforcement and military personell can legally carry a gun to see how much safer that makes the city:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man, woman and child in the state. There were 99 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 12% on 2009

Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk

[78SA]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

What I'm taking away from this thread is that most simply are unwilling to compromise. Many of the left want guns eliminated from society, many on the right want no restrictions on guns whatsoever.

I thought what I presented was a realistic compromise. In fact, I still do. It seems the only retort is that criminals ignore the law so there would be no net decrease in gun violence. I disagree with this position.

What conservatives and gun rights advocates fail to realize is that the public is getting fed up with the status quo. When your guys are in power, nothing is done to address these kinds of problems. Then when my guys get in power and enact legislation, all the sudden your side is full of ideas about how you could do it better without so many rules. Just like what happened with the health care bill.

The writing is on the wall. If your side is unwilling to compromise and doesn't do something to address the problem, don't be surprised when the public has had enough and votes in politicians who will do something about it.

Ok, if you really want a discussion about it then discuss how your ideas would work. Address the replies to each of your points and give a good response on why your comments will work and the replies are wrong. Tell us how the comments about only law abiding citizens would be affected are wrong.