The Core Problem to Murder by Firearms

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You've stated early on that all societies need rules, and I asked you why that would be since most liberals believe that man is basically good?

They do? Not my experience. I thought they hate their fellow man so much that they project all their own worst traits upon everyone else, and then burden them with excessive regulation to keep them in line.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I believe there is a miscommunication. It is a fact the Court ruled, as it was understood prior to the ruling, that the 2nd amendment is a right for individuals to bear arms. You do see real examples State laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.

Which ones? Maybe, some have, but looking at the chats I posted, states gun control have existed for some time. The stricter, the more effective.

The other miscommunication is about standards. Standards should be applied evenly. If it is an objective standard that "rights" can be limited or the need for peer-review. Standards cannot shift due to subjective feelings, if they do they are not standards. If you want to apply standards to others, you have to accept the application of the same standard to you. The "rights" you champion are subject to limitation too and many States are putting limitations on a certain privacy "right". so prepare yourself for the Court to uphold these limitations as the legal standard is "rights" are not limited.

Fine by me. Perhaps gun laws should all have the same standard. There is a constant refrain about "criminals don't obey gun laws, so why should I?

Take Chicago. Strict gun laws and damn, a hell hole. SORRY Gus.

Majority of Guns Used in Chicago Crimes Come From Outside Illinois: Report
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...454016983.html
Nearly 60 percent of guns recovered in Chicago come from out-of-state dealers, with more than 20 percent traced back to Indiana, according to a newly released report on the city’s violence.

So standards on gun control laws across different states can cut down on criminals acquiring illegal guns.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

I have a friend who flies frequently and who is regularly stopped and thoroughly searched at airports before being allowed to proceed through to the boarding area. His last name is Gray; he is an American citizen; he is a retired NYC language teacher (Spanish - 30 yrs.); he has mild autism and some physical challenges. Mr. Gray asked why he is stopped/delayed so often. He was told his name is on the "list" as a potential security "threat."

So, how did HIS "false positive" happen?? Mr. Gray hasn't legally fought the issue, yet; he just arrives at the airport several hours earlier than he would normally have to.

It is probably best if one fully understands the current gun background-check laws before ignorantly demanding more.

If you yourself fully understood the background-check laws...you would know that only about 1% of the gun buyers are rejected because of a background check. If the process is indeed as slipshod as your article claims...then my "ignorant" guess is that the rejections would amount to a percentage a tad higher than that.

PS:

There is a separate poll-thread here asking if background checks should be a necessity during a gun purchase. My "ignorant" guess is that the "yeses" will win in a landslide. What would be YOUR "highly intelligent" guess? Isn't a government "of the people, by the people and FOR the people" obligated to represent the will of the 'people'?

[MargieRose]

97.8 % of mass shootings have occurred in gun-free-zones.

Gun-free zones need to go. They are not only ineffective, they're dangerous

[incoming]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

They do? Not my experience. I thought they hate their fellow man so much that they project all their own worst traits upon everyone else, and then burden them with excessive regulation to keep them in line.

This describes the core of the Democrat Party to a tee....play by their rules or face their style of justice. Trump and Justice Kavanaugh are example in recent history, President Trump being a lifelong democrat. Donating many dollars to democrats and their causes. Look at the hell they have put him through for stepping out of line.

It is astonishing what some people will do when power starts to slip through their fingers, there are no boundaries.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You've stated early on that all societies need rules, and I asked you why that would be since most liberals believe that man is basically good?

I, as a liberal will amend that blanket statement: Yes we need rules, but.....as far as most people being basically good and decent.......

All except fanatical uber-right wing literal minded evangelicals,.... judging others their moral, political and cultural inferiors all the freaking time.

And will never shut up telling everyone their trivial crap.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Which ones? Maybe, some have, but looking at the chats I posted, states gun control have existed for some time. The stricter, the more effective.
Fine by me. Perhaps gun laws should all have the same standard. There is a constant refrain about "criminals don't obey gun laws, so why should I?

Take Chicago. Strict gun laws and damn, a hell hole. SORRY Gus.

Majority of Guns Used in Chicago Crimes Come From Outside Illinois: Report
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...454016983.html
Nearly 60 percent of guns recovered in Chicago come from out-of-state dealers, with more than 20 percent traced back to Indiana, according to a newly released report on the city’s violence.

So standards on gun control laws across different states can cut down on criminals acquiring illegal guns.

I thought you were for State sovereignty? If a State doesn't want to limit a "right" it is there prerogative. Criminals are criminals and they don't obey laws.

20% is only 20 guns out of 100, where did the other 80 guns come from?

Again you are arguing to legislate morality, people don't follow laws? Come clean you want a gun ban.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you yourself fully understood the background-check laws...you would know that only about 1% of the gun buyers are rejected because of a background check. If the process is indeed as slipshod as your article claims...then my "ignorant" guess is that the rejections would amount to a percentage a tad higher than that.

PS:

There is a separate poll-thread here asking if background checks should be a necessity during a gun purchase. My "ignorant" guess is that the "yeses" will win in a landslide. What would be YOUR "highly intelligent" guess? Isn't a government "of the people, by the people and FOR the people" obligated to represent the will of the 'people'?

Chill, Thaskalos. I didn't have you or your comment in mind, when saying 'ignorant.' Pretty much the whole of the Left is for more gun control legislation of any kind...most of whom I don't believe know enough about the current laws...I'm learning, too, as the issue escalates.

What does Beto, for example, jumping to mandatory gun confiscation tell you?

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

What does Beto, for example, jumping to mandatory gun confiscation tell you?

Why does anyone need an assault weapon?
That is, of course, outside of law enforcement and the military.

Colt will stop selling AR-15s to the public.
This is a responsible action which, unfortunately, won't make much difference
in an already saturated market. Other companies should follow suit.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I thought you were for State sovereignty? If a State doesn't want to limit a "right" it is there prerogative. Criminals are criminals and they don't obey laws.

20% is only 20 guns out of 100, where did the other 80 guns come from?

Again you are arguing to legislate morality, people don't follow laws? Come clean you want a gun ban.

Did not post the most significant excerpt

Nearly 60 percent of guns recovered in Chicago come from out-of-state dealers, with more than 20 percent traced back to Indiana, according to a newly released report on the city’s violence.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I thought you were for State sovereignty? If a State doesn't want to limit a "right" it is there prerogative. Criminals are criminals and they don't obey laws.

Btw, even with Chicago's strict gun laws, attempting to control new gun purchases, is not enough. There are so many floating around already, more must be done. And a backlog of years of severe urban blight complicates matters in Chicago.

Look at the regulations by these top 6 states to use as universal standards.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Why does anyone need an assault weapon?
That is, of course, outside of law enforcement and the military.

Colt will stop selling AR-15s to the public.
This is a responsible action which, unfortunately, won't make much difference
in an already saturated market. Other companies should follow suit.

Why keep up this fallacy of assault weapon. Assault weapons are banned, a limitation on the right? AR is not an assault weapon. AR stands for Armalite Rifle. Armalite is the original manufacturer.

Colt stop selling as you said for business reasons, a saturated market and not due to social conscious.

Assault weapons are already banned. Does it feel good to you to lie to yourself and others that assault weapons are not banned and they should be?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

They do? Not my experience. I thought they hate their fellow man so much that they project all their own worst traits upon everyone else, and then burden them with excessive regulation to keep them in line.

Well yeah, they do. When was the last time any liberal spoke on a topic and not tripped over himself in contradictions? This is the pervasive hypocrisy of the left.

If you don't believe this, just ask Hcap how he feels about the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. Then watch him do a fancy jig for us around that question.

Or even better yet...ask Hcap if he subscribes to the the biblical principle of the Law of Distrust, and if not, then why can't he trust his fellow man to carry weapons to protect himself? On this one, he'd have to perform humongous feats of mental gymnastics for us, which would be even more entertaining.

In fact, you don't even have to do either of the above: Hcap never answered my question about why rules for all societies are necessary, as he has claimed, if man is such a good egg. If he can't successfully navigate this simple and straightforward question, he certainly would perform even more dismally when attempting to navigate waters on either of the two above.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Btw, even with Chicago's strict gun laws, attempting to control new gun purchases, is not enough. There are so many floating around already, more must be done. And a backlog of years of severe urban blight complicates matters in Chicago.

What must be done a ban, because criminals can't control themselves?

[Tom]

So it is NOT the guns, but the people of chicago that are the problem.