(10-11-2015 04:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 03:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Let me be perfectly clear.

1. I want more gun regulations.

2. I don't believe most people would resist.

3. Those that do would simply not comply.

4. Those few that are caught would be eliminated. I don't have a problem with that.

You think we don't know this?

I'll give you mine.... responding to yours

1) I want fewer people to die from guns.

I find it funny that you didn't say this... AT ALL. I know you'll say it was implied, but that is precisely the problem with your solutions. You start from 'implied' solutions and ignore the actual focus of the problem. which leads us to

2) The ones that would comply aren't the problem. Which is precisely the problem. Your regulation, by your own admission is primarily intended to impact LAWFUL people.

I want the Constitution respected. I have rights and as long as my rights don't interfere with yours, you shouldn't have a say in my life... whether it be my sex life or what I do for a hobby or to feel safe in my home. You are inconsistent at best with a right to privacy.

3) Here again, you're not only admitting that you don't even intend to impact criminals, but instead you intend to create more of them.

What is the point of regulation that BY DESIGN doesn't solve the issue?

4) Be eliminated? Jails are already overcrowded... which means you'll have no place to put all these new offenders... without letting say burglars go free... So we're swapping burglars and drunk drivers for otherwise law abiding citizens, because they own guns but have never used them to harm or threaten anyone.

Seriously? I can't believe we're even having this conversation. I think your own 'friends' on the issue are distancing themselves from you

Fit, don't follow with a but, but, but sidestepping mess of drool. You have been owned.

What's that saying - "It is better to keep your mouth shut and allow people to think you a fool than open it and remove all doubt".

This is one of those times...............................

(10-12-2015 03:41 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 04:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 03:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Let me be perfectly clear.

1. I want more gun regulations.

2. I don't believe most people would resist.

3. Those that do would simply not comply.

4. Those few that are caught would be eliminated. I don't have a problem with that.

You think we don't know this?

I'll give you mine.... responding to yours

1) I want fewer people to die from guns.

I find it funny that you didn't say this... AT ALL. I know you'll say it was implied, but that is precisely the problem with your solutions. You start from 'implied' solutions and ignore the actual focus of the problem. which leads us to

2) The ones that would comply aren't the problem. Which is precisely the problem. Your regulation, by your own admission is primarily intended to impact LAWFUL people.

I want the Constitution respected. I have rights and as long as my rights don't interfere with yours, you shouldn't have a say in my life... whether it be my sex life or what I do for a hobby or to feel safe in my home. You are inconsistent at best with a right to privacy.

3) Here again, you're not only admitting that you don't even intend to impact criminals, but instead you intend to create more of them.

What is the point of regulation that BY DESIGN doesn't solve the issue?

4) Be eliminated? Jails are already overcrowded... which means you'll have no place to put all these new offenders... without letting say burglars go free... So we're swapping burglars and drunk drivers for otherwise law abiding citizens, because they own guns but have never used them to harm or threaten anyone.

Seriously? I can't believe we're even having this conversation. I think your own 'friends' on the issue are distancing themselves from you

Fit, don't follow with a but, but, but sidestepping mess of drool. You have been owned.

What's that saying - "It is better to keep your mouth shut and allow people to think you a fool than open it and remove all doubt".

This is one of those times...............................

it's all the time.....his spew isn't worth any credit in any course....and he's a supposed educator.....

these are the people that get a response......

I never wonder why.....

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 05:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 05:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So the solution is more laws. Brilliant.

Yes more regulation. Add o have stated, they are in the minority. Most people do not believe in the mantra.

But criminals do.

We are always going to have criminals. That isn't a reason to do nothing.

So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 05:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes more regulation. Add o have stated, they are in the minority. Most people do not believe in the mantra.

But criminals do.

We are always going to have criminals. That isn't a reason to do nothing.

So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 05:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes more regulation. Add o have stated, they are in the minority. Most people do not believe in the mantra.

But criminals do.

We are always going to have criminals. That isn't a reason to do nothing.

So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Nobody is suggesting to do away with all laws. It's just a modest suggestion to not continue to pass laws that aren't going to prohibit people from committing these crimes.

Instead of pushing new 'feel-good laws' that don't do anything, why not focus on the cause of the crimes?

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But criminals do.

We are always going to have criminals. That isn't a reason to do nothing.

So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  We are always going to have criminals. That isn't a reason to do nothing.

So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Screw this fight with guns ........

I'd rather see tax reform as the middle class is dying at a faster rate than guns!

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

The DWI is a bad comparison. The vast majority of people that get DWI's aren't criminals.

(10-13-2015 10:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

The DWI is a bad comparison. The vast majority of people that get DWI's aren't criminals.

So let me get this straight. Someone who is convicted of DWI isn't a criminal but someone who crosses an imaginary line between the United States and Mexico IS a criminal.

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

Ignoring the rabbit trail you want to take others down, now delving into immigration...

There is a vast difference between restrictions on what people DO with guns, and simple ownership of guns... just like there is in drinking.

Owning liquor is not a crime. Buying liquor is not a crime. Having a massive stockpile isn't a crime, even though it is highly flammable. You don't even need to prove that you aren't an alcoholic nor do you have DWIs in order to buy liquor. If you drink and DRIVE, you have a problem.

Nobody on here has a problem with more restrictive laws on the use of guns to commit crimes... like the use of alcohol to commit crimes (DWI). Let me clarify... those that WOULD resist would only do so on the basis that we aren't enforcing the ones we already have... but I don't think many people care if you want to make stiffer penalties for unlawful use of a gun. It's making merely possessing one a crime that people care about... or using it for lawful purposes like hunting, personal protection or home defense.

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  We are always going to have criminals. That isn't a reason to do nothing.

So criminals are always going to break the law, but let's pass more laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

Of laws don't prevent any criminals them let's do away with all laws.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

See all the Ilegal Aliens and their actions. Really a deterrent. !! Lmao,..Lmao!!

( I feel dirty just incorporating that at the end of post). Nasty!!

(10-13-2015 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Laws are not intended to prevent crime. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes. The great evil of progressive thinking is that laws should be used to shape behavior and not to enforce the protection the personal liberty of the individual from other individuals.

Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

Ignoring the rabbit trail you want to take others down, now delving into immigration...

There is a vast difference between restrictions on what people DO with guns, and simple ownership of guns... just like there is in drinking.

Owning liquor is not a crime. Buying liquor is not a crime. Having a massive stockpile isn't a crime, even though it is highly flammable. You don't even need to prove that you aren't an alcoholic nor do you have DWIs in order to buy liquor. If you drink and DRIVE, you have a problem.

Nobody on here has a problem with more restrictive laws on the use of guns to commit crimes... like the use of alcohol to commit crimes (DWI). Let me clarify... those that WOULD resist would only do so on the basis that we aren't enforcing the ones we already have... but I don't think many people care if you want to make stiffer penalties for unlawful use of a gun. It's making merely possessing one a crime that people care about... or using it for lawful purposes like hunting, personal protection or home defense.

I've never been against people owning guns. I do think however that there can be laws or changes in restrictions that could make a difference.

(10-13-2015 02:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

Ignoring the rabbit trail you want to take others down, now delving into immigration...

There is a vast difference between restrictions on what people DO with guns, and simple ownership of guns... just like there is in drinking.

Owning liquor is not a crime. Buying liquor is not a crime. Having a massive stockpile isn't a crime, even though it is highly flammable. You don't even need to prove that you aren't an alcoholic nor do you have DWIs in order to buy liquor. If you drink and DRIVE, you have a problem.

Nobody on here has a problem with more restrictive laws on the use of guns to commit crimes... like the use of alcohol to commit crimes (DWI). Let me clarify... those that WOULD resist would only do so on the basis that we aren't enforcing the ones we already have... but I don't think many people care if you want to make stiffer penalties for unlawful use of a gun. It's making merely possessing one a crime that people care about... or using it for lawful purposes like hunting, personal protection or home defense.

I've never been against people owning guns. I do think however that there can be laws or changes in restrictions that could make a difference.

Like what?

(10-13-2015 02:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 02:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

Ignoring the rabbit trail you want to take others down, now delving into immigration...

There is a vast difference between restrictions on what people DO with guns, and simple ownership of guns... just like there is in drinking.

Owning liquor is not a crime. Buying liquor is not a crime. Having a massive stockpile isn't a crime, even though it is highly flammable. You don't even need to prove that you aren't an alcoholic nor do you have DWIs in order to buy liquor. If you drink and DRIVE, you have a problem.

Nobody on here has a problem with more restrictive laws on the use of guns to commit crimes... like the use of alcohol to commit crimes (DWI). Let me clarify... those that WOULD resist would only do so on the basis that we aren't enforcing the ones we already have... but I don't think many people care if you want to make stiffer penalties for unlawful use of a gun. It's making merely possessing one a crime that people care about... or using it for lawful purposes like hunting, personal protection or home defense.

I've never been against people owning guns. I do think however that there can be laws or changes in restrictions that could make a difference.

Like what?

Researchers confirm that universal background check laws effectively improve public safety and save lives. Research has found that states with universal background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.19 States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and 31 percent fewer suicides per capita than states without these laws.20 This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity.21

Check out this website for more information
smartgunlaws.org

(10-13-2015 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Laws are intended to deter crime. No law is going to prevent crime 100% but if something is against the law, then it makes it less likely for someone to do it.

Laws do in fact shape behavior for most people.

What happened to the notion that we are a nation of laws?

Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

The DWI is a bad comparison. The vast majority of people that get DWI's aren't criminals.

So let me get this straight. Someone who is convicted of DWI isn't a criminal but someone who crosses an imaginary line between the United States and Mexico IS a criminal.

Ummmm not sure why you are bringing immigration into this. My point is that people that end up with DWI's aren't in any way comparable to an individual that wakes up one day and decides to go shoot a bunch of unarmed kids or young adults.

Oh, and since you brought up immigration, that line isn't imaginary. It's called a border. Wars are fought over them, citizenship defined by them, and laws restrained by them.

(10-13-2015 02:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Nothing, but you don't need multiple laws that don't do anything but place additional hardship on law abiding citizens. Most of the shooters either know they are going to be killed or kill themselves, so what impact do you think the laws concerning waiting periods or magazine sizes had on shaping their behavior?

Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

The DWI is a bad comparison. The vast majority of people that get DWI's aren't criminals.

So let me get this straight. Someone who is convicted of DWI isn't a criminal but someone who crosses an imaginary line between the United States and Mexico IS a criminal.

Ummmm not sure why you are bringing immigration into this. My point is that people that end up with DWI's aren't in any way comparable to an individual that wakes up one day and decides to go shoot a bunch of unarmed kids or young adults.

UMMMMM not sure why you are saying that convicted drunk drivers aren't criminals.

(10-13-2015 02:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 02:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

The DWI is a bad comparison. The vast majority of people that get DWI's aren't criminals.

So let me get this straight. Someone who is convicted of DWI isn't a criminal but someone who crosses an imaginary line between the United States and Mexico IS a criminal.

Ummmm not sure why you are bringing immigration into this. My point is that people that end up with DWI's aren't in any way comparable to an individual that wakes up one day and decides to go shoot a bunch of unarmed kids or young adults.

UMMMMM not sure why you are saying that convicted drunk drivers aren't criminals.

Bad wording on my part. Once convicted they are criminals. The two crimes, DWI and murder, are not in the same class nor the same reflection on the individual committing them.

(10-13-2015 02:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 02:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 02:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Laws restricting guns would have the same effect as laws that restrict anything else. It isn't going to stop everyone from breaking the law but it will make a difference.

DWI has declined significantly because of more restrictive laws. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing by further restricting gun laws?

Ignoring the rabbit trail you want to take others down, now delving into immigration...

There is a vast difference between restrictions on what people DO with guns, and simple ownership of guns... just like there is in drinking.

Owning liquor is not a crime. Buying liquor is not a crime. Having a massive stockpile isn't a crime, even though it is highly flammable. You don't even need to prove that you aren't an alcoholic nor do you have DWIs in order to buy liquor. If you drink and DRIVE, you have a problem.

Nobody on here has a problem with more restrictive laws on the use of guns to commit crimes... like the use of alcohol to commit crimes (DWI). Let me clarify... those that WOULD resist would only do so on the basis that we aren't enforcing the ones we already have... but I don't think many people care if you want to make stiffer penalties for unlawful use of a gun. It's making merely possessing one a crime that people care about... or using it for lawful purposes like hunting, personal protection or home defense.

I've never been against people owning guns. I do think however that there can be laws or changes in restrictions that could make a difference.

Like what?

Researchers confirm that universal background check laws effectively improve public safety and save lives. Research has found that states with universal background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.19 States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and 31 percent fewer suicides per capita than states without these laws.20 This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity.21

Check out this website for more information
smartgunlaws.org

I always hear about the "90%" who support it, but I never see it referenced to a specific survey or study. I wonder what exactly it is referring to and how it was worded, I imagine something along the lines of, "Do you support preventing criminals from acquiring guns by way of a background check?". Okay, who wouldn't support that?

If you take the time to explain to each person that was surveyed what UBC actually is, how it doesn't work without a national gun registry, and that every country that has created a national gun registry, confiscation was followed soon after, I'd doubt more than 10% would support it. I can cite Australia, New Zealand, Canada, but you have to look no further than New York under Cuomo's bill. The people that were foolish enough to register under the SAFE Act got these in the mail soon after.



Also, given that 13* of the 14 most notable mass shooters went through background checks to acquire their guns, I fail to see how UBC would stop anything.

*Exception being Adam Lanza, who stole his guns from his mother, who went through a background check. Stealing guns is already illegal.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in "feel good" legislation; which is exactly what UBC is at best, and the first step to confiscation at worst.