Aye ya yae. Give it a rest Johnny...

(10-26-2016 04:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and are you really going down the "they can make guns at home" talking point?

Reality is now a talking point?

kap. more of a "I don't want to get fixatiated on a trival issue."

for example in today's tread on the UWGB poll station and turning that into an argument over parking fines.

in fact I was pretty open that homemade weapons is possible. the point is why are we even going to go there? like what's your endgame? oh he robbed a store with a one shot pipe, wood, ducktape thing. that is somehow equal to the damage capability of an ar15?

Last time I checked dead is dead, be it from one gunshot or thirty.

And when you have some time peruse the videos of the weapons the rebels in Syria are making and using.

(10-26-2016 04:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I love how the first part you say I am misrepresenting him with the murder analogy then elsewhere in your post say "why make laws at all?"

I love how how you can't tell the difference between me asking a rhetorical question, and you suggesting a re-interpetation of what someone else said.

I didn't say YOU suggested we not make laws at all, did I?

either way the talking point we are discussing is dumb. criminals don't follow the law. that is nothing new. that isn't an excuse to say it should no longer be a law.

Perhaps not, but IT IS a pretty compelling argument as to why we don't need even more laws they won't abide.

The leftist argument that "cons" or the wrongfully vilified NRA want NO laws regarding guns or gun control is stupid and willfully ignorant or just intellectually lazy.

We say ENFORCE the laws we have. Why not start there first? We don't. Everyone knows that, only some refuse to admit that's the case.

(10-26-2016 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 03:10 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  So. Wouldn't Stop and Frisk remove these illegal guns from bad people?

or you can solve the issue at the source of the problem by preventing criminals from getting guns in the first place.

Can we prevent criminals from getting drugs too?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(10-26-2016 04:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:50 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:38 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  isn't the whole point of the issue in chicago and how come the situation there is so different than LA/NYC come down to two major differences between that city and LA/NYC.

1. Chicago is in a region with significantly less gun control whereas Cali and New York are known for having amongst the toughest policies on guns.

2. Chicago doesn't have the mandatory gun laws as LA/NYC that their police commish complains about.

I can't tell if you are uninformed that the rallying cry for chicago is that they should model them selves on a gun control law championed by liberals or advocating on behalf of that measure because you support them.

seeing as you alluded to "chicago and NYC are the same" I'm going with uninformed. the last time this forum had a gun control dicussion was when the Chicago commish pointed out the murder rate is as bad as it is because they lack that specific law in NYC/LA. so are you not paying attention?

I didn't say they were the same, I said "IF", and only one way to find out is to see the time served for these gun crimes.

I want to see the stats on how much time was sentenced for these crimes. You won't answer that or care to find out. You did nothing but avoid addressing it. Because you already know the answer. And I know that because you feel they should be out of prison and f'n voting.

You said:

If it's anything like Chicago (and it likely is)

so gimme a freaking break. you can't say you approached that with much skepticism. you lie as badly as trump saying "no one respects women more than me"

don't accuse me of not caring to find out for something you are too lazy to find out yourself.

Here it comes. We already know they don't dole out sufficient sentences for gun crimes. I don't need to find that out for myself, YOU just need to admit it.

AGAIN. You don't give a rats ass how much time these perps serve for these gun crimes, you just want MORE gun control. That won't work if you refuse to enforce the existing laws. And like I said, why should you care? Since you're so adamant to get these perps out to vote.

can you prove they don't dole out sentences. I literally haven't heard that. what I have heard is chicago complains their sentencing for guns isn't as strict as NYC.

I want less murders and less people using guns for bad things. nothing more nothing less.

SUFFICIENT sentences. How typical of you to leave that word out from what I said. Nowhere did I say people weren't getting sentenced. You're dancing around the f'n issue. And unsurprisingly STILL won't address it or disprove it. You want less guns, period. And only for law abiding citizens, nothing more and nothing less. Your last sentence is BS.

(10-26-2016 03:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/25/rep...tates.html

A total of 74 percent of the guns were originally purchased outside of New York. Handguns made up three-quarters of all the guns used in crimes, and 86 percent of those handguns were bought in another state.

Of the 14,588 traced weapons recovered in the Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Capital region and Lower Hudson Valley metropolitan areas, 42 percent, or 6,196, originated in New York, followed by 7 percent each in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Those are all states with relatively tight gun regulations and lower rates of gun ownership.

This bolded portion jumped out at me. So guns flow to a tight gun regulation state from two follow tight gun regulation states....

(10-26-2016 04:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  either way the talking point we are discussing is dumb. criminals don't follow the law. that is nothing new. that isn't an excuse to say it should no longer be a law.

And contrary to your now repeated falsehood, nobody has suggested it should no longer be the law.

On the contrary, we have suggested the VERY obvious counterpoint to your very simple comment here that since criminals don't obey laws, making more laws only impacts non-criminals. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of the laws against criminals, but the efficacy of the laws against law abiding citizens. If you want to eliminate guns, pass a law making it illegal to possess them. I suspect that 70% or more of current legal owners would comply... and the remaining 30% would become criminals. Of the criminals, I bet you don't convince one single one to give up his gun. On a percentage basis, the new law is say 60% overall effective... which sounds great, until you realize that it did nothing to reduce crime... in fact, it created new criminals.

If instead you focused on catching criminals who are already breaking the existing laws (and I'd support strengthening of straw purchase laws and enforcement and investigation)... and ESPECIALLY focusing on convicting them and sentencing them for such crimes... then I think you'd have a lot of support from the right because only criminals would be impacted.... and almost nobody cares about how criminals feel.

If you have an idea for a new law that criminals would respect more than the ones we already have then bring it on. Universal background checks isn't that. I'm in favor of making adjustments to our current procedures, but as much to make it easier for legal purchasers as for ensuring we eliminate illegal ones.

I think there's a feeling among some that a 2 time convict who now gets a 'weapons possession' charge as his third strike is somehow a travesty/victim. I completely disagree. I'm not a fan of zero tolerance laws, but I consider possession of a gun by someone whom we have deemed to be a threat to society such that they can be denied their constitutional right to OWN a gun to be a MAJOR violation of the law.

I'm trying to make what i see to be a very obvious point, but 'guessing' exactly how criminals would continue to get around these new laws isn't an important part of that point.

(10-26-2016 04:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  kap. more of a "I don't want to get fixatiated on a trival issue."

Then why did you pull such trivial points out of my relatively long post and have now wasted half a dozen points on it?

(10-26-2016 06:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  kap. more of a "I don't want to get fixatiated on a trival issue."

Then why did you pull such trivial points out of my relatively long post and have now wasted half a dozen points on it?

It's one of JohnnyZero's typical tactics. Throw enough dust in the air and people might not notice that he's fallen flat on his face in his original point.