Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an Auto-Antonym

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe he's a chickenshit who's really hoping having a scary looking gun might make him not need to use it. It might be both a status symbol and a bluff. He knows his most likely opp is another kid just like him; who wants to know they made their aunt's sister weep so hard she thought she was having a heart attack? Just because you will doesn't mean you want to.

More likely to piss it off then kill it in one shot, better off just carrying a small one shot pistol to prevent the pain and suffering before you die being mauled.

I wouldn’t say people in urban areas need guns less, they probably need guns more.

What good would register do, unless you plan to take guns later. Which the anti gun people always do. Not a lot of murders and criminals leave their guns behind, cause well that’d be stupid, and guns can be reloaded and reused. There’s only one reason to make a list of gun owners.

But stolen registered firearms in criminals hands would be ok?
Or do you think criminals will Register their guns?
In fact the courts have ruled criminals don’t have to obey gun laws as to do so would self incriminate them. It ruled so when a criminal with a unregistered class 3 gun was taken to court.

Um what? That’s not what I said. There isn’t any federal registration, in fact it’s against the law for government to make one. Some states do creative legal tricks to bypass that and make illegal registry’s.

A gun that cost me $1500 will sell to criminal for $300. Why? Well the criminal selling it didn’t pay anything so that’s $300 pure profit. A 1500 gun is same as a $500 gun tire criminal. It doesn’t matter. They don’t care if it’s a sig or a Glock, both shoot.

But that mom working two jobs barely scraping by in a bad area , who’s ex is stalking her and all she can afford is a $200 hi point , could be life or death for her. Gun laws always target the poor who need self defense the most.
Let’s require insurance. Make the, pay $250 per gun they own. Rifle people: $250 thsts pocket change my machine gun cost me $35,000. Poor people: I can’t afford that, how will I defend myself and my family.
Same goes for making people pay a licensing fee of $100 each gun, or doing a 50%tqx on guns. All these laws target poor people only. Middle class and up won’t be effected.

Anti gun movement overal is elitist. Anti gun started so blacks couldn’t own guns, now they don’t want any poor people to own guns. Only the elites should own guns.

They already banned cheap guns, $150 and below. Many people who need a gun can’t get one now. This one guy i watch gives away free guns to people who need it but can’t afford it every month. I’m fortunate but not as fortunate as others. I can’t afford expensive insurance, fees and taxes.
But that’s the plan.

I imagine they bought a shotgun. While big and powerful they won’t knock you on your butt.

I’ve got idea, we won’t ban abortion just make it cost $10,000 per abortion. Problem solved. The people who most want or need one won’t be able to afford it. The rich can afford it but probably won’t need or use it. So abortion is banned without being banned.

This is the anti gun strategy

You always treat anyone who supports more gun control than yourself as though they're inherently 'anti-gun'. As far as folks who support gun control some support different approaches than others. Personally I there's restrictions here I view as excessive even though I wouldn't go guano like what the US gun lobby would implement there. There's restrictions I would favour in the US, but the end result wouldn't look like Australia or the UK or even Canada.

There's plenty of American gun owners who disagree with the gun lobby, the NRA and similar groups. Are they all 'anti-gun'?

And actually, in the context of organized crime yes a lot of shooters do get rid of weapons after they've been used, if it's a rifled barrelled weapon. Ideally it would be used in such a way that the casings are recovered, since firing pins also leave identifiable markings; the barrel is destroyed with a wirebrush and disposed of to reduce the available forensics information.

A registry helps with tracing weapons to see what portion are being diverted from the legal market, whether through straw buyers or through theft. It helps with identifying if the guns used for crime in your area are being purchased locally or not. Cops like them because they help them with knowing which homes have guns, that's not a strong motivator for me, but that argument exists. There is certainly the possibility that they could be used to help with confiscation, but just like how it's an argument against control, 3D printing and small scale manufacture would also eliminate that possibility. In fact, that might change the whole argument towards what Chris Rock suggested, bullet control.

In theory mandating smart gun tech is within what is constitutionally allowed and could force manufacturers to only sell compatible ammunition, you can 3d print whatever but if stocks of traditional ammo for your homemade gun don't exist it's not very useful. I know one can handload but that would certainly force one to be a dedicated hobbyist to participate significantly, so suddenly cheap semi-auto guns that get treated as disposable by organized crime today would be largely a hobbyist interest with a far more limited supply of ammo and thus a lot less usage in that context (even if the guns themselves are just printed as needed).

Of course, the dangerous thing would be if anyone can build an American-180 at home, because that thing is just about the ideal blicky for spraying out the side of a car at relatively close range. High-rate of fire = lots of shots in a very short exposure window = somebody's getting hit. 22LR is dirt cheap too. A high RoF is ideal for aircraft cannons too, and for the same reason. Guns similar to that (.22LR, full-auto) probably represent something we can agree shouldn't be broadly available to the public.

What I had in mind: if legal guns are registered, you can quickly decide weather a given gun is legal or not, leave the former, confiscate the latter - with the aim of decreasing the number of guns in circulation but not at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
You should always report stolen guns, just like a stolen ID.

Okay, I got you wrong. The vast majority of legal guns in the US is lawfully unregistered. Am I right now?

All this talk about whether some bad people could still get a hold of guns, we are missing the forest through the trees. Looking at these cases innocent people who were killed by police, could we not come to a conclusion that more lives would be safer if there in general were less guns in the USA? A gun in a house hold increases the likelihood of death, there is no evidence that having a gun more accessible actually saves lives.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XvvYPkBuKP8

Regardless of any other fact, the more guns there are the more likely people are to die from guns, so the more inconvenient things are the safer people will be, Knives can't be used for a drive-by. There is no evidence that own a gun will act as more of deterrent of people attacking you or your home as it increases the likelihood that someone else using a gun to kill you. Guns don't save lives, they end them. In the majority of these cases of innocent people killed by guns, gun control could have only been more likely for them not to die. All of their lives should have been worth more than whatever people get from guns to be as easy to get as they are.

It’s not a good idea if only the cops and military have guns.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
Adolph Hitler

Wut?

Hitler specifically did not want minorities like Jews to have weapons, the police should be there to protect the people not act as conquerors to have civilians treated like subjects.

Your laws and regulations against people like your military turning their guns on the people should be what keeps them in check, not the threat that they would be shot back at. It would be nice if they had less tools of death too.

Did I stutter, or are there actually guns that can fix a problem without killing something?

I suppose that there is the whole protect yourself from bears argument, but very few people who have guns are at all at risk from a bear.

^ You do know that guns have been and can be a deterrent against violence don't you? That's right; a deterrent against violence. Violent crimes and murders are sometimes deterred by guns without a person firing the weapon? Have you never of that before?

I'm not sure if you stuttered. Stuttering is a speech disorder.