Um NO violent crime has been declining for decades in the US at the same time gun ownership has risen. the DOJ has concluded that gun laws have 0 effect on crime so has every reputable academic study on gun laws vs crime have all come to the conclusion that gun control has a neutral effect on crime or a negative one i undestand there are people here that dont understand gun rights but guns really arent a contributing factor in US crime that said ant is a terrible gun rights debater
No.... There are no n persons. Give every jap an m60 and 50000 rounds and there would still be no crime. America doesn't have a gun problem it has a black problem
Nah he is right on this. Japan is mostly just Japanese. The minorities they do have, they either just pretend aren't there (like koreans and the Ainu) or they just write them off as foreigners who could never be truely japanese anyway. Easier to be a peaceful society when the people who are slighted by things like institutional racism make up a much smaller percentage of the population. And then of course just natural cultural differences between japanese people and americans that are rooted in centuries of history.
Australia would be a better comparison of what America could have done. They had a mass shooting in Tasmania way way back, and as a result the government down in Australia brought in a whole bunch of gun laws, and since then mass shootings have been very rare over there. If we had acted more decisively after Columbine happened... it may be to late now though sadly.
The difference is pretty simple: the U.S. is one of only four nations (as far as I know) that have the right to bear arms written into their constitutions. Australia could simply change their gun laws like any other law. Anything comparable to the U.K. or Australian gun bans would require an overwhelming majority in America, which just isn't very likely.
Forget about a gun ban. America couldn't even pass a Federal Universal Background Check law after Sandy Hook when over 90% of the population supported the bill and wanted it passed. Congress is bought by the NRA so it doesn't matter what the majority wants. It isn't a representative democracy.
It isn't just the NRA. It is contributions from citizens. Whenever gun laws are brought into a debate the Democratic candidate will say he is going to fight for stricter gun laws and fundraise off of that and the Republican candidate will say he is going to protect your 2nd Amendment rights and fundraise off of that. Nobody actually intends on passing Federal Laws because then the issue is closed and they can't use it to raise money. Why do you think Congress couldn't push a bill thru with 90% of the public asking for it? It's just a coincidence that the NRA gives them money and they ignore the will of the people? A Republican can't get elected without the NRA's backing. There are more ways to buy Congress than just handing them money.
Well those same voters wanted a Federal background check law passed. Congress is elected to represent their constituents. They aren't elected to be henchmen for the NRA. Most people don't equate a background check to their 2nd amendment rights being stripped away so when they elect a candidate who has a good NRA report card they don't think that means you can never pass any Federal legislation related to guns ever. It's only a very small percentage of Americans who think a Universal background check will inevitably lead to an all-out gun ban.
Most people don't equate a background check to their 2nd amendment rights being stripped away so when they elect a candidate who has a good NRA report card they don't think that means you can never pass any Federal legislation related to guns ever.
Sure, but your polled opinion doesn't mean shit if you vote based on the endorsement of an organization that doesn't share that opinion.
Well your opinion should mean shit because it doesn't matter what the NRA thinks.. your elected representatives are supposed to represent you.. not the NRA. When 90% of America is saying "we want a universal background check" Congress is supposed to say "well it looks like the NRA is going to be pissed at us because we have to vote based on the will of the people because that is what we are elected to do and circumstances change so even though some people voted us in to protect the 2nd amendment after this shooting it looks like a lot of them realize a federal law is needed." If people vote for a President because he is anti war and then we get bombed by Japan and everyone in America says "shit we just got bombed.. we better fight back" the President isn't supposed to say "hey.. you guys voted for me because I'm peaceful and even though the circumstances changed I don't give a shit and fuck you I'm not going to war." The President is supposed to do the math and realize that things changed now.
That's how they operate but as a representative democracy they are quite literally sent to represent their constituents. That is why they are called "Representatives." That isn't supposed to be a symbolic title. That is supposed to be a descriptive title. When our elected officials spend their tenure in office trying to get elected next time they run they are doing it wrong. That is why nothing gets accomplished.
You get an opportunity every two/six years to judge how well they've represented you. Again, if you elect someone who doesn't represent you more than once, it's your own fault.
Well when they are making decisions during their tenure, after you already elected them and something major happens (like 20 kids getting shot to death) and now 90% of Americans say "we recognize something terrible just happened and we think maybe a universal background check might be a good idea" your representative has a responsibility to listen to the 90% and vote accordingly. You don't get to vote the fucker out every time a new bill comes up for approval. The guy has to listen to his constituents while he's in office. It's too late once they shoot the bill down. You can vote him out but the bill is already killed. Everyone loses their shit when they talk about how Tobacco lobbyists used to pay Congress to lie about how dangerous cigarettes are or when they talk about Monsanto paying Congress to shoot down bills making it mandatory that they label their products 100% but when it's guns and the NRA it's somehow different.
your representative has a responsibility to listen to the 90% and vote accordingly.
No, they don't. If the system was designed to work that way, you would expect a referendum in the mail every two days, or at least some mandatory process for Congressmen to gauge the opinions of their constituents between elections. But nothing of the sort exists. The polls you're citing are conducted by independent polling agencies on issues they choose to cover. Does Congress "have to" vote according to the majority of their constituents on all issues? Or only the ones for which independent polling data is available?
The entire system of American government is based on the principal of giving representatives a period of two or six years to vote in the general interests of their constituents, after which their performance is evaluated. Senators are given a particularly long term precisely because they're meant to be more concerned with the long-term and less beholden to moment-to-moment public opinion.
You keep talking about what Congressmen "have to" do, but there's absolutely nothing in the American Constitution that supports what you're saying. The fact is that "what the people want" is only embodied in election mandates, and every reelection is a tacit seal of approval of the last term. If the American people decide that they've been represented adequately and reelect someone, no one has the right to tell them otherwise. We have no one to blame but ourselves if the people we elect consistently vote against the public interest.
Is that not how things are supposed to work? And if you're trying to say it's only citizens who happen to hold NRA memberships, allow me to remind you that the NRA has only 5 million members out of 95+ million gun owners.
Why do you think Congress couldn't push a bill thru with 90% of the public asking for it?
What's your source for that number? And if 90% of the public was asking for it, it would be passed. Why? Because the politicians going against the overwhelming majority of their constituents would lead to them being voted out of office.
A Republican can't get elected without the NRA's backing.
I guess that's why the bill you keep referencing was co-sponsored by a Republican (who's still in office).
Also, why do reactionaries like yourself always want new legislation when a tragedy happens? Haven't you learned that it almost always comes back to bite you in the ass (looking at you, Patriot Act). Oh, and how this law have prevented Sandy Hook?
I'm not saying I want the law. I could give a shit if there is a universal background check law or not. I live in a pretty safe area. I don't feel like I'm going to get shot anytime soon. I just think when 90% of the population wants a law passed the representatives should do their jobs and pass the law. I don't think that passing a Universal background check law is stripping me of my 2nd amendment rights or will lead to a fuckin gun confiscation.
And if 90% of the public wanted it, it would be passed? That's funny because 90% of the public did want it and it was shot down.
all while totally ignoring that UBC laws don't seem to stop criminals from getting guns the simple truth is this: mass shooters rarely have a criminal history or are adjudicated mentally ill so will pass a BC and career criminals don't need to buy a gun at a gun store or gun show they know dudes that will sell them an illegal gun. i could give a shit what the public supports(BTW 90% number is BS its closer to 60) because background checks don't seem to work. im totaly open to other solutions to stopping criminals that doesn't criminalize or harass legal gun owners even a total reform of the NICS system because it is 95% ineffective at stopping prohibited people. 95% of times someone "fails" a NICS check it turns out to be BS do we really want to expand a system that is totally broken or instead replace it with a system that works.
A legal gun owner won't be harassed by having a background check run that incorporates their mental health history. If you go to a therapist and tell him you have thoughts of suicide or hurting people it would be logged and you would be blocked from buying a gun until you're cleared. This would stop Jared Laughner, James Holmes, the Amy Schumer movie theatre shooter, etc. from buying a legal gun. Let them try to find a gun on the streets. If you aren't having mental health issues you can buy a gun still. There's no harassment there. Then what needs to happen to stop people from getting guns illegally is a law needs to be passed making the penalty for having an illegal gun a mandatory life sentence. People will be less willing to sell illegal guns if they are guaranteed life in prison for handling them. Again, it won't stop everyone but it will severely cut down on the amount of illegal guns being sold. When the supply goes down, the demand goes up and the prices sky-rocket. To buy an illegal assault rifle in Australia costs over 20,000 US dollars because they are so difficult to come by. There are plenty of steps that can be taken to make things better and still constitutionally acceptable but nobody wants to solve the problem because solving problems doesn't make money. Fundraising by saying you are going to solve a problem is what makes money.
Comparing to aus is stupid ass they are isolated we border Mexico criminals would simply start getting guns the same way Mexican cartels do also mental health checks would be unconstitutional ad a violation of due process u can't have a right denied without due process since the 2nd specifies the right to bear arms and Heller afirms that. any mental health check that doesn't go through the courts and due process is unlikely to survive a court chalange however a reform that would survive it could be like: mandate if a doctor or care provider hears their client making dangerous threats they are by law required to seek a court to ajudicate mental illness or they lose their license and are held crimminaly liable for that clients actions if they fail to do somthing. This would be somthing that few would oppose. However even then would be mass killers could still get guns if they have never seen a doctor. Also like in the case of the Santa Barbra dude it may not matter as days before he killed his parents had called the police and they came to his house and still could not do anything because it would have violated his rights
Over 90%? You're one delusional, idiotic, antigun liberal faggot. You might convince one or two drunk autists in here but you are getting smashed by anyone with half a brain and you'd get humiliated bringing this kind of dumbfuck horseshit to r/progun.
Dumb horseshit like polling data? What would they do? Say those 20 polls are wrong cause here's one funded by the NRA that says the number is smaller? And I am a gun owner.. I just don't think a background check is a fuckin gun confiscation cause I'm not a retard and I don't run and hide in my doomsday bunker waiting to shoot drones out of the sky every time someone mentions maybe passing a common sense gun bill. I guess I just don't love my guns the same way you do.
Yeah. That's the sort of response data usually gets from people whose argument is purely emotional. That's why Anthony got slaughtered the 2 times he tried to debate gun laws on air. One person has facts and data and one has "I don't care.. I like guns."
Ok well you cited a bullshit article that uses a once progun proponent's emotional quote, a progun adovocate who turned antigun after she got shot - wow a self centered leftist, never seen that before - and then you use a number of studies from leftist organizations without explaining any of the methodology or even how ridiculous it is to even think 90% of the country would be for this with 150 million gun owners and then the fact that 90% of the country doesn't know about any one thing let alone couldn't have possibly responded to any one survey.
It shows how you need anything to prove your point, even baseless talking points pushed by a progun advocate who changed her tune after being a victim of a political assassination.
Also, why aren't current background checks through NICS enough? How would the background check have stopped this black gunman or Elliot Rodgers? Why do you ignore that nearly everyone who acts out is known to people as a danger beforehand in some way or another, either through behavior and/or prior arrests? What's the average time to crime with a legal gun - 10 days or 10 years? How many legal guns are used in crimes?
When a drunk driver kills someone why don't you ask for background checks on cars? Waiting periods to drive? Mechanical speed limits in cars?
For the car issue, cars serve a practical purpose: traveling. Their sole function isn't to be a tool for killing (be it self defense or an aggressive attack). People don't call for stricter car laws because people aren't retarded.
I don't think a universal background check law would stop a lot of shootings but it would stop some people from obtaining a gun legally who shouldn't own a gun. Let them have to find and buy a gun illegally. The laws aren't for the buyer. The laws are for the seller. The idea that "nothing will stop all the killings so we should never do anything" is retarded. A universal background check law won't stop you from buying a gun but a universal background check law that had your mental health history attached to it would have stopped Jared loughner and James Holmes and the guy that shot up Amy Schumer's movie, etc. from legally buying a gun. Let them have to take their business to the streets. Buying an illegal gun isn't easy when you don't know any black market gun dealers. Wanna stop people from buying guns illegally? Pass a law saying if you get caught with an illegal gun you get automatic life in prison.. See how willing people will be to buy and sell illegal guns when the stakes are raised. Will it stop all murders? Of course not. But it will make it more difficult for crazy people to buy guns and that's the goal. The only argument against it is "they'll come take our guns if any law is passed!!!11!!" The NRA raises money by telling dummies that and it works like a charm.
For the car issue, cars serve a practical purpose: traveling. Their sole function isn't to be a tool for killing (be it self defense or an aggressive attack). People don't call for stricter car laws because people aren't retarded.
LOL, I knew you had shit to say from before, but you only start off by proving it further. Guns serve many practical purposes, such as self and home defense, and purposes that don't involve killing people, like target shooting and hunting, and when they make a gun at the factory, they only test that it reliably chambers an explosion and can fire the projectile; there are even plenty of defensive gun uses without firing the gun.
You're afraid of guns, don't know how to use them, don't understand gun laws, and you want people to listen to anything you have to say about them.
Just so you remember, you posted some bullshit article that I debunked with many points, and you skipped over all of them to begin at another argument I brought up that you're failing to competently respond to. Faggot.
I don't think a universal background check law would stop a lot of shootings but it would stop some people from obtaining a gun legally who shouldn't own a gun.
LOL you have no idea how many illegal guns versus legal guns are used in crimes, and you didn't respond to my point that the time to crime for legal guns is 10 years not 10 days (the ATF found this), and you don't want to mention on which race causes most of the gun violence in this country with their illegally obtained firearms. You are so stupid and think that guns come from brick and mortar licensed FFLs.
Let them have to find and buy a gun illegally.
They do in the vast majority of cases you absolute retard.
The laws aren't for the buyer.
Holy fucking shit you're stupid.
The laws are for the seller.
No dummy, there are laws for the seller as well. Go into any gunstore and the counter will have a no straw purchases poster.
The idea that "nothing will stop all the killings so we should never do anything" is retarded.
That's right, and especially if you keep promoting gun control that only serves to prevent law abiding people from buying guns and carrying them in public. You want everyone to be disarmed except criminals and insane people who can and will always obtain guns and do harm with them. You're absolutely stupid, and this is a proper argument for you, not an ad hominem, since we've both backed it up multiple times already.
A universal background check law won't stop you from buying a gun but a universal background check law that had your mental health history attached to it would have stopped Jared loughner and James Holmes and the guy that shot up Amy Schumer's movie, etc. from legally buying a gun.
You cite two mentally ill people, most likely part of some kind of crazy operation, and you ignore the blacks who cause half the gun violence in our country and who are half the gun victims. You are a dumb liberal who should be committed yourself.
Let them have to take their business to the streets.
They already do you sheltered faggot.
Buying an illegal gun isn't easy when you don't know any black market gun dealers.
The vast majority of people in gun crimes don't use legally obtained guns you dumb faggot.
Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).
No, because that's impossible and will always happen, it's as fruitless as fighting terrorism as an ideology. There are already laws to stop illegal gun sales from sellers, manufacturers, and by buyers. I want to let good people by the same guns/items criminals will always get and use, such as automatics and extended magazines, since good people don't buy these by personal restraint if they want them and they happen to be illegal under their jurisdiction.
Pass a law saying if you get caught with an illegal gun you get automatic life in prison.. See how willing people will be to buy and sell illegal guns when the stakes are raised.
You have no idea about gun laws, you've said nothing, and nobody should ever listen to you about anything let alone guns.
Will it stop all murders? Of course not. But it will make it more difficult for crazy people to buy guns and that's the goal. The only argument against it is "they'll come take our guns if any law is passed!!!11!!" The NRA raises money by telling dummies that and it works like a charm.
Yeah that's the only argument I made, I didn't mention the NRA once, and I never even said that, /u/kgt5003 you mentally ill faggot.
Wait... why shouldn't there be a mandatory life sentence for people who are caught with an illegal firearm? You said I have no idea about gun laws but you didn't explain why this is a bad idea? You did call me a retard for saying it but you failed to explain the gun laws I don't understand that would make enforcing a harsher penalty on illegal firearms be used as a deterrent. You are worried about the blacks using illegal guns for all of their crimes but you, for some reason, don't want to make stricter penalties for the use of those illegal firearms? Are you that attached to guns that you can't even agree to putting people in prison for life for selling illegal guns? Even that is too close to Obama coming and taking your 2nd amendment rights away? But I'm the mentally ill one because I'm well adjusted enough to understand how laws work in a civil society? We had a time and place when everyone had guns. It's what we refer to as the "wild west." Everyone had a gun and somehow it didn't stop people from robbing each other and killing each other. Knowing everybody was armed didn't stop fights from breaking out or shootings from happening. People fuckin shot each other all the time. That is why we "tamed" the West. But you keep fighting the good fight. We can all just march around with our Bibles and our Rifles all safe and sound. Nothing mentally ill about that....
Its still relevant, a country with a high population and density with low amounts of violence, its not that its a perfect comparison, but its a very interesting insight into how a culture can exist with out gun violence.
Forget about a gun ban. America couldn't even pass a Federal Universal Background Check law after Sandy Hook when over 90% of the population supported the bill and wanted it passed. Congress is bought by the NRA so it doesn't matter what the majority wants. It isn't a representative democracy.
43 comments
4 CookieHaid 2015-08-27
No, this.
1 fawkkyall 2015-08-27
hahahhahahahahaha
4 mntahoe 2015-08-27
Um NO violent crime has been declining for decades in the US at the same time gun ownership has risen. the DOJ has concluded that gun laws have 0 effect on crime so has every reputable academic study on gun laws vs crime have all come to the conclusion that gun control has a neutral effect on crime or a negative one i undestand there are people here that dont understand gun rights but guns really arent a contributing factor in US crime that said ant is a terrible gun rights debater
-3 fawkkyall 2015-08-27
I just don't believe it. hows that for debate?
3 HJohnBen 2015-08-27
Well, if that's the tact you wish to take, I'll simply say that your feelings are irrelevant and point to the Second Amendment. How's that for debate?
0 Sentinel_Event 2015-08-27
It's tack, guy
-2 fawkkyall 2015-08-27
it doesn't feel right
2 FattiesArentPeople 2015-08-27
Are you a woman?
Feelz > realz
1 TweetPoster 2015-08-27
@AnthonyCumia:
[Mistake?] [Suggestion] [FAQ] [Code] [Issues]
1 BRUTAL_ANAL_RAPE8888 2015-08-27
No.... There are no n persons. Give every jap an m60 and 50000 rounds and there would still be no crime. America doesn't have a gun problem it has a black problem
1 Jewsus_H_Kike 2015-08-27
http://imgur.com/ZNfVzC3 Exactly
-1 With_Clean_Hands 2015-08-27
Nah he is right on this. Japan is mostly just Japanese. The minorities they do have, they either just pretend aren't there (like koreans and the Ainu) or they just write them off as foreigners who could never be truely japanese anyway. Easier to be a peaceful society when the people who are slighted by things like institutional racism make up a much smaller percentage of the population. And then of course just natural cultural differences between japanese people and americans that are rooted in centuries of history.
Australia would be a better comparison of what America could have done. They had a mass shooting in Tasmania way way back, and as a result the government down in Australia brought in a whole bunch of gun laws, and since then mass shootings have been very rare over there. If we had acted more decisively after Columbine happened... it may be to late now though sadly.
3 panjshirlion 2015-08-27
The difference is pretty simple: the U.S. is one of only four nations (as far as I know) that have the right to bear arms written into their constitutions. Australia could simply change their gun laws like any other law. Anything comparable to the U.K. or Australian gun bans would require an overwhelming majority in America, which just isn't very likely.
2 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Forget about a gun ban. America couldn't even pass a Federal Universal Background Check law after Sandy Hook when over 90% of the population supported the bill and wanted it passed. Congress is bought by the NRA so it doesn't matter what the majority wants. It isn't a representative democracy.
4 realticketuniversity 2015-08-27
They must come cheap.
3 kgt5003 2015-08-27
It isn't just the NRA. It is contributions from citizens. Whenever gun laws are brought into a debate the Democratic candidate will say he is going to fight for stricter gun laws and fundraise off of that and the Republican candidate will say he is going to protect your 2nd Amendment rights and fundraise off of that. Nobody actually intends on passing Federal Laws because then the issue is closed and they can't use it to raise money. Why do you think Congress couldn't push a bill thru with 90% of the public asking for it? It's just a coincidence that the NRA gives them money and they ignore the will of the people? A Republican can't get elected without the NRA's backing. There are more ways to buy Congress than just handing them money.
2 panjshirlion 2015-08-27
Then that's the voters' fault.
1 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Well those same voters wanted a Federal background check law passed. Congress is elected to represent their constituents. They aren't elected to be henchmen for the NRA. Most people don't equate a background check to their 2nd amendment rights being stripped away so when they elect a candidate who has a good NRA report card they don't think that means you can never pass any Federal legislation related to guns ever. It's only a very small percentage of Americans who think a Universal background check will inevitably lead to an all-out gun ban.
3 panjshirlion 2015-08-27
Sure, but your polled opinion doesn't mean shit if you vote based on the endorsement of an organization that doesn't share that opinion.
1 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Well your opinion should mean shit because it doesn't matter what the NRA thinks.. your elected representatives are supposed to represent you.. not the NRA. When 90% of America is saying "we want a universal background check" Congress is supposed to say "well it looks like the NRA is going to be pissed at us because we have to vote based on the will of the people because that is what we are elected to do and circumstances change so even though some people voted us in to protect the 2nd amendment after this shooting it looks like a lot of them realize a federal law is needed." If people vote for a President because he is anti war and then we get bombed by Japan and everyone in America says "shit we just got bombed.. we better fight back" the President isn't supposed to say "hey.. you guys voted for me because I'm peaceful and even though the circumstances changed I don't give a shit and fuck you I'm not going to war." The President is supposed to do the math and realize that things changed now.
3 panjshirlion 2015-08-27
Not how republics work. They only way congressmen "have" to vote is whichever way gets them elected next time.
-1 kgt5003 2015-08-27
That's how they operate but as a representative democracy they are quite literally sent to represent their constituents. That is why they are called "Representatives." That isn't supposed to be a symbolic title. That is supposed to be a descriptive title. When our elected officials spend their tenure in office trying to get elected next time they run they are doing it wrong. That is why nothing gets accomplished.
2 panjshirlion 2015-08-27
You get an opportunity every two/six years to judge how well they've represented you. Again, if you elect someone who doesn't represent you more than once, it's your own fault.
0 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Well when they are making decisions during their tenure, after you already elected them and something major happens (like 20 kids getting shot to death) and now 90% of Americans say "we recognize something terrible just happened and we think maybe a universal background check might be a good idea" your representative has a responsibility to listen to the 90% and vote accordingly. You don't get to vote the fucker out every time a new bill comes up for approval. The guy has to listen to his constituents while he's in office. It's too late once they shoot the bill down. You can vote him out but the bill is already killed. Everyone loses their shit when they talk about how Tobacco lobbyists used to pay Congress to lie about how dangerous cigarettes are or when they talk about Monsanto paying Congress to shoot down bills making it mandatory that they label their products 100% but when it's guns and the NRA it's somehow different.
1 panjshirlion 2015-08-27
No, they don't. If the system was designed to work that way, you would expect a referendum in the mail every two days, or at least some mandatory process for Congressmen to gauge the opinions of their constituents between elections. But nothing of the sort exists. The polls you're citing are conducted by independent polling agencies on issues they choose to cover. Does Congress "have to" vote according to the majority of their constituents on all issues? Or only the ones for which independent polling data is available?
The entire system of American government is based on the principal of giving representatives a period of two or six years to vote in the general interests of their constituents, after which their performance is evaluated. Senators are given a particularly long term precisely because they're meant to be more concerned with the long-term and less beholden to moment-to-moment public opinion.
You keep talking about what Congressmen "have to" do, but there's absolutely nothing in the American Constitution that supports what you're saying. The fact is that "what the people want" is only embodied in election mandates, and every reelection is a tacit seal of approval of the last term. If the American people decide that they've been represented adequately and reelect someone, no one has the right to tell them otherwise. We have no one to blame but ourselves if the people we elect consistently vote against the public interest.
1 [deleted] 2015-08-27
[deleted]
2 realticketuniversity 2015-08-27
Is that not how things are supposed to work? And if you're trying to say it's only citizens who happen to hold NRA memberships, allow me to remind you that the NRA has only 5 million members out of 95+ million gun owners.
What's your source for that number? And if 90% of the public was asking for it, it would be passed. Why? Because the politicians going against the overwhelming majority of their constituents would lead to them being voted out of office.
I guess that's why the bill you keep referencing was co-sponsored by a Republican (who's still in office).
Also, why do reactionaries like yourself always want new legislation when a tragedy happens? Haven't you learned that it almost always comes back to bite you in the ass (looking at you, Patriot Act). Oh, and how this law have prevented Sandy Hook?
2 kgt5003 2015-08-27
I'm not saying I want the law. I could give a shit if there is a universal background check law or not. I live in a pretty safe area. I don't feel like I'm going to get shot anytime soon. I just think when 90% of the population wants a law passed the representatives should do their jobs and pass the law. I don't think that passing a Universal background check law is stripping me of my 2nd amendment rights or will lead to a fuckin gun confiscation.
And if 90% of the public wanted it, it would be passed? That's funny because 90% of the public did want it and it was shot down.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=percent+of+americans+who+support+universal+background+check+after+sandy+hook
1 mntahoe 2015-08-27
if universal backround checks have 90% support of the people then why didn't Washington's UBC law pass with 90% of the vote or anywhere close to it?
1 [deleted] 2015-08-27
[deleted]
1 mntahoe 2015-08-27
all while totally ignoring that UBC laws don't seem to stop criminals from getting guns the simple truth is this: mass shooters rarely have a criminal history or are adjudicated mentally ill so will pass a BC and career criminals don't need to buy a gun at a gun store or gun show they know dudes that will sell them an illegal gun. i could give a shit what the public supports(BTW 90% number is BS its closer to 60) because background checks don't seem to work. im totaly open to other solutions to stopping criminals that doesn't criminalize or harass legal gun owners even a total reform of the NICS system because it is 95% ineffective at stopping prohibited people. 95% of times someone "fails" a NICS check it turns out to be BS do we really want to expand a system that is totally broken or instead replace it with a system that works.
1 kgt5003 2015-08-27
A legal gun owner won't be harassed by having a background check run that incorporates their mental health history. If you go to a therapist and tell him you have thoughts of suicide or hurting people it would be logged and you would be blocked from buying a gun until you're cleared. This would stop Jared Laughner, James Holmes, the Amy Schumer movie theatre shooter, etc. from buying a legal gun. Let them try to find a gun on the streets. If you aren't having mental health issues you can buy a gun still. There's no harassment there. Then what needs to happen to stop people from getting guns illegally is a law needs to be passed making the penalty for having an illegal gun a mandatory life sentence. People will be less willing to sell illegal guns if they are guaranteed life in prison for handling them. Again, it won't stop everyone but it will severely cut down on the amount of illegal guns being sold. When the supply goes down, the demand goes up and the prices sky-rocket. To buy an illegal assault rifle in Australia costs over 20,000 US dollars because they are so difficult to come by. There are plenty of steps that can be taken to make things better and still constitutionally acceptable but nobody wants to solve the problem because solving problems doesn't make money. Fundraising by saying you are going to solve a problem is what makes money.
1 mntahoe 2015-08-27
Comparing to aus is stupid ass they are isolated we border Mexico criminals would simply start getting guns the same way Mexican cartels do also mental health checks would be unconstitutional ad a violation of due process u can't have a right denied without due process since the 2nd specifies the right to bear arms and Heller afirms that. any mental health check that doesn't go through the courts and due process is unlikely to survive a court chalange however a reform that would survive it could be like: mandate if a doctor or care provider hears their client making dangerous threats they are by law required to seek a court to ajudicate mental illness or they lose their license and are held crimminaly liable for that clients actions if they fail to do somthing. This would be somthing that few would oppose. However even then would be mass killers could still get guns if they have never seen a doctor. Also like in the case of the Santa Barbra dude it may not matter as days before he killed his parents had called the police and they came to his house and still could not do anything because it would have violated his rights
0 Ellenpaosfishface 2015-08-27
Over 90%? You're one delusional, idiotic, antigun liberal faggot. You might convince one or two drunk autists in here but you are getting smashed by anyone with half a brain and you'd get humiliated bringing this kind of dumbfuck horseshit to r/progun.
0 kgt5003 2015-08-27
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
Dumb horseshit like polling data? What would they do? Say those 20 polls are wrong cause here's one funded by the NRA that says the number is smaller? And I am a gun owner.. I just don't think a background check is a fuckin gun confiscation cause I'm not a retard and I don't run and hide in my doomsday bunker waiting to shoot drones out of the sky every time someone mentions maybe passing a common sense gun bill. I guess I just don't love my guns the same way you do.
1 Ellenpaosfishface 2015-08-27
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
0 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Yeah. That's the sort of response data usually gets from people whose argument is purely emotional. That's why Anthony got slaughtered the 2 times he tried to debate gun laws on air. One person has facts and data and one has "I don't care.. I like guns."
3 Ellenpaosfishface 2015-08-27
Ok well you cited a bullshit article that uses a once progun proponent's emotional quote, a progun adovocate who turned antigun after she got shot - wow a self centered leftist, never seen that before - and then you use a number of studies from leftist organizations without explaining any of the methodology or even how ridiculous it is to even think 90% of the country would be for this with 150 million gun owners and then the fact that 90% of the country doesn't know about any one thing let alone couldn't have possibly responded to any one survey.
It shows how you need anything to prove your point, even baseless talking points pushed by a progun advocate who changed her tune after being a victim of a political assassination.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/gun-control-lies-files-90-percent-support-for-background-checks/#axzz3k22bj0oq
http://www.gunfacts.info/
Also, why aren't current background checks through NICS enough? How would the background check have stopped this black gunman or Elliot Rodgers? Why do you ignore that nearly everyone who acts out is known to people as a danger beforehand in some way or another, either through behavior and/or prior arrests? What's the average time to crime with a legal gun - 10 days or 10 years? How many legal guns are used in crimes?
When a drunk driver kills someone why don't you ask for background checks on cars? Waiting periods to drive? Mechanical speed limits in cars?
Get rekt faggot.
0 kgt5003 2015-08-27
For the car issue, cars serve a practical purpose: traveling. Their sole function isn't to be a tool for killing (be it self defense or an aggressive attack). People don't call for stricter car laws because people aren't retarded.
I don't think a universal background check law would stop a lot of shootings but it would stop some people from obtaining a gun legally who shouldn't own a gun. Let them have to find and buy a gun illegally. The laws aren't for the buyer. The laws are for the seller. The idea that "nothing will stop all the killings so we should never do anything" is retarded. A universal background check law won't stop you from buying a gun but a universal background check law that had your mental health history attached to it would have stopped Jared loughner and James Holmes and the guy that shot up Amy Schumer's movie, etc. from legally buying a gun. Let them have to take their business to the streets. Buying an illegal gun isn't easy when you don't know any black market gun dealers. Wanna stop people from buying guns illegally? Pass a law saying if you get caught with an illegal gun you get automatic life in prison.. See how willing people will be to buy and sell illegal guns when the stakes are raised. Will it stop all murders? Of course not. But it will make it more difficult for crazy people to buy guns and that's the goal. The only argument against it is "they'll come take our guns if any law is passed!!!11!!" The NRA raises money by telling dummies that and it works like a charm.
0 Ellenpaosfishface 2015-08-27
LOL, I knew you had shit to say from before, but you only start off by proving it further. Guns serve many practical purposes, such as self and home defense, and purposes that don't involve killing people, like target shooting and hunting, and when they make a gun at the factory, they only test that it reliably chambers an explosion and can fire the projectile; there are even plenty of defensive gun uses without firing the gun.
You're afraid of guns, don't know how to use them, don't understand gun laws, and you want people to listen to anything you have to say about them.
Just so you remember, you posted some bullshit article that I debunked with many points, and you skipped over all of them to begin at another argument I brought up that you're failing to competently respond to. Faggot.
LOL you have no idea how many illegal guns versus legal guns are used in crimes, and you didn't respond to my point that the time to crime for legal guns is 10 years not 10 days (the ATF found this), and you don't want to mention on which race causes most of the gun violence in this country with their illegally obtained firearms. You are so stupid and think that guns come from brick and mortar licensed FFLs.
They do in the vast majority of cases you absolute retard.
Holy fucking shit you're stupid.
No dummy, there are laws for the seller as well. Go into any gunstore and the counter will have a no straw purchases poster.
That's right, and especially if you keep promoting gun control that only serves to prevent law abiding people from buying guns and carrying them in public. You want everyone to be disarmed except criminals and insane people who can and will always obtain guns and do harm with them. You're absolutely stupid, and this is a proper argument for you, not an ad hominem, since we've both backed it up multiple times already.
What you say about James Holmes is an outright lie if you aren't being the typical retard with no facts that you are. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/james-holmes-legally-bought-arsenal-of-guns-chemicals/.
Jared Loughner was part of a political assassination, he was a wind up toy, and would have gotten from his handlers, but he also bought guns legally and was never declared insane by a court like any citizen needs to be http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0110/Why-Jared-Loughner-was-allowed-to-buy-a-gun.
You cite two mentally ill people, most likely part of some kind of crazy operation, and you ignore the blacks who cause half the gun violence in our country and who are half the gun victims. You are a dumb liberal who should be committed yourself.
They already do you sheltered faggot.
The vast majority of people in gun crimes don't use legally obtained guns you dumb faggot.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
No, because that's impossible and will always happen, it's as fruitless as fighting terrorism as an ideology. There are already laws to stop illegal gun sales from sellers, manufacturers, and by buyers. I want to let good people by the same guns/items criminals will always get and use, such as automatics and extended magazines, since good people don't buy these by personal restraint if they want them and they happen to be illegal under their jurisdiction.
You have no idea about gun laws, you've said nothing, and nobody should ever listen to you about anything let alone guns.
Yeah that's the only argument I made, I didn't mention the NRA once, and I never even said that, /u/kgt5003 you mentally ill faggot.
-1 fratboy_massacre 2015-08-27
You KNOW you're winning an argument when you call the other person a mentally ill faggot!
-2 Ellenpaosfishface 2015-08-27
Yeah way to focus on how I did that here and there, not on any of my points, you mentally ill faggot who can't rebut any points I made.
1 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Wait... why shouldn't there be a mandatory life sentence for people who are caught with an illegal firearm? You said I have no idea about gun laws but you didn't explain why this is a bad idea? You did call me a retard for saying it but you failed to explain the gun laws I don't understand that would make enforcing a harsher penalty on illegal firearms be used as a deterrent. You are worried about the blacks using illegal guns for all of their crimes but you, for some reason, don't want to make stricter penalties for the use of those illegal firearms? Are you that attached to guns that you can't even agree to putting people in prison for life for selling illegal guns? Even that is too close to Obama coming and taking your 2nd amendment rights away? But I'm the mentally ill one because I'm well adjusted enough to understand how laws work in a civil society? We had a time and place when everyone had guns. It's what we refer to as the "wild west." Everyone had a gun and somehow it didn't stop people from robbing each other and killing each other. Knowing everybody was armed didn't stop fights from breaking out or shootings from happening. People fuckin shot each other all the time. That is why we "tamed" the West. But you keep fighting the good fight. We can all just march around with our Bibles and our Rifles all safe and sound. Nothing mentally ill about that....
-1 fawkkyall 2015-08-27
Its still relevant, a country with a high population and density with low amounts of violence, its not that its a perfect comparison, but its a very interesting insight into how a culture can exist with out gun violence.
2 Sentinel_Event 2015-08-27
fawkkyall 8/27/2015 ~5:19AM
2 kgt5003 2015-08-27
Forget about a gun ban. America couldn't even pass a Federal Universal Background Check law after Sandy Hook when over 90% of the population supported the bill and wanted it passed. Congress is bought by the NRA so it doesn't matter what the majority wants. It isn't a representative democracy.