Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

the clockmaker:

psijac:
The question is not whether the US can have less crime that Mexico, Britain, or any place else for that matter. The question is can the USA have less gun death than it's past self with or without gun control. Comparing the on Nation to another is a ridiculous exercise.

My sister is only 2 years older than me and just bought her second home in California, I do not currently own a home. The fact I own guns and she doesn't has nothing to do with this disparity.

No one is suggesting adopting things whole cloth, we are suggesting looking at plans adopted elsewhere and adapting them to the US and its situation.

And no, your personal anecdote does not have do to with the fact that you own a gun and she does not, it does not have anything to do with anything. I am confused as to why you have brought it up.

Sorry I wanted to state that comparing nations is as fruitful as comparing individual accomplishments.

If there was such a powerful correlation between having a gun and committing a successful suicide than the US would be at the top of the suicide list. as it currently stands Japan has us beat by many places. TO be fair Japan has always been better at certain things then we are.

psijac:

thaluikhain:

psijac:
My take aways are; the most common weapon for crime is a handgun and not an assault rifle,

Given that it is exceedingly difficult to own an assault rifle in the US, and very easy to own a handgun, that's a bit of a no-brainer.

If you meant "assault weapon", though, that is a fair point. Handguns are something that should be treated a lot more seriously than they are in the US.

THat's not exactly true. Some states do make things very hard to own an Assault Rifle. Others have no restrictions.

It is true that it you want a military assault rifle, something capable of fully automatic fire and not semi automatic fire then costs and red tape do go up.

Assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire by definition. Well, this includes bursts, which are fully automatic up to a point.

thaluikhain:

psijac:

thaluikhain:

Given that it is exceedingly difficult to own an assault rifle in the US, and very easy to own a handgun, that's a bit of a no-brainer.

If you meant "assault weapon", though, that is a fair point. Handguns are something that should be treated a lot more seriously than they are in the US.

THat's not exactly true. Some states do make things very hard to own an Assault Rifle. Others have no restrictions.

It is true that it you want a military assault rifle, something capable of fully automatic fire and not semi automatic fire then costs and red tape do go up.

Assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire by definition. Well, this includes bursts, which are fully automatic up to a point.

Then technically speaking an AR-15 should not be classified as an assault rifle which even though is semi auto, does not have a burst feature. Regardless of classification criminals prefered handguns, over shotguns, sniper rifles or semi autos. Those three categories are just as easy to buy for a law abiding citizen as a handgun

psijac:
Then technically speaking an AR-15 should not be classified as an assault rifle which even though is semi auto, does not have a burst feature.

Of course it isdn't. It just gets called one by the media because it looks like an M16, or for sensationalism.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Yes, people survive suicide sometimes. Totally. Because said people not only think they've failed at life, but they also fail at death.

Seppuku is not all that common, but it is one effective and painful and slow way to go.

The painlessness and speed of killing oneself with a gun is far more important than its effectiveness. A knife plunged up the throat is also effective, just painful and takes a little bit of blood letting before death. Throwing oneself off the top of a building is also insanely effective, but there's that whole "I can see my death approach slowly" thing.

Painless and quick is why people use guns. Guns also cost a lot of money, so it's not even the easiest or cheapest method. (A tall place is.)

No. No. No. No. As a Registered Nurse working mainly with suicide prevention I can't stress how wrong you are. This is ignorant bullshit and has no support in the scientific work on suicide. So let me give you some facts:

90% of suicide attempts can be prevented if they are delayed by more than an hour. This is because even when people are actively considering suicide they still have doubts. Just about all suicide attempts are made during moments of heightened emotion, usually fear, shame or guilt, and a majority of suicide attempts are made while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

Secondly, anyone attempting suicide has a threshold for how aggressive the attempt can be. Taking pills is the least aggressive way while on the aggressive end we find stabbing yourself and throwing yourself in front of traffic or a train. What's important to realize here is that shooting yourself is a fairly non-aggressive way. All it involves is pulling a trigger, as opposed to driving a blade through your sternum or throwing yourself off a chair and strangling to death.

Thirdly, the certainty and time until death also factors in. If you swallow all the pills you have at home you still have an hour or so before they really kick in, giving you plenty of time to reconsider your decision to kill yourself (this is usually what happens with intoxication attempts, once the initial emotional surge passes they regret their suicide attempt and call an ambulance). If you can't tie a knot properly trying to hang yourself is no good. Driving out to a tall place or railway crossing takes time, giving you a chance to calm down and reconsider. A gun is quick, even if aimed improperly it will cause serious to fatal damage if aimed at the head and you usually have it at home. You can have a gun loaded and aimed at your head in less than a minute after making the decision to kill yourself if at home.

All these together makes guns very dangerous from a suicidality perspective. They are easy to use and does not have a high innate aggression value, they do not require significant preparation, are usually kept at home and will cause catastrophic damage even if the suicide attempt fails. Many of the suicides committed with firearms could probably be prevented had the firearm not been available. This in itself should be a reason for better regulation of firearms, because no one should have to die because they are going through a rough period with emotional trauma that caused them to make a stupid decision.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

at the time of "operation iraqi freedom" 70% of Americans believed saddam hussain was personally involved in 9/11.

they believed that because their (republican) government was basically inferring it at every possible juncture.

ofc you will likely have forgotten that now...even though a pubic being sooo utterly wrong in their collective belief about a subject like that which directly led to their support for entering into war that lasted 8 years is not something anyone should ever forget...

thaluikhain:

Big_Willie_Styles:
And how many would have blown themselves up in a crowd of innocent civilians? Your point is emotional banter and fluff. Try again. How many people try to commit suicide in front of other people? Most do it alone so that no one can stop them. Suicidal people are messed up in the head. They've given up. And unless prevented by an external force, they'll try it again.

Except of course in the really real world. In reality, any number of people attempt suicide, fail (or do so half-heartedly) and survive. Having a gun around provides a quick and easy way of doing it.

Yes, in lieu of a gun, you could commit suicide by seppuku. Only, in the really real world, people don't tend to do that.

Australia's tightening of firearm laws in the 90s led to a dramatic drop in suicide by firearms, without a similar increase in other methods.

wrong.

Suicide is a mental issue that doesn't go away.

Its not something only "pussies" do.

Its a disease that gets worse over time. Gun restrictions only delay the inevitable because none of these people get any sort of help. It does not leave on its own, they need outside help.

There is no "getting out of it" unless you were being emotional and hyperbolic. Which is a false image of people who kill themselves, and sets more stigma for an actual condition.

To imply that taking away a gun will stop suicides is insulting not only to the people who suffer from mental illness but the entire damn issue of mental illness. Stop it.

Ultratwinkie:

wrong.

Suicide is a mental issue that doesn't go away.

Its not something only "pussies" do.

Its a disease that gets worse over time. Gun restrictions only delay the inevitable because none of these people get any sort of help. It does not leave on its own, they need outside help.

There is no "getting out of it" unless you were being emotional and hyperbolic. Which is a false image of people who kill themselves, and sets more stigma for an actual condition.

To imply that taking away a gun will stop suicides is insulting not only to the people who suffer from mental illness but the entire damn issue of mental illness. Stop it.

Did you miss the part where I said I was talking about the really real world? In the really real world, many people recover from suicide attempts. Yes, they may require outside help (not always but often), this doesn't change the fact that is does happen.

Because of this, in the really real world, Australia's tightening of firearm laws in the 90s led to a dramatic drop in suicide by firearms, without a similar increase in other methods.

Making suicide attempts less likely to succeed saves lives. This shouldn't be controversial.

Nikolaz72:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Nikolaz72:
Only 11.000 more people than anywhere else in the west died from gunshots in your country from unnecessary gun violence in 2011? How quaint. I'll go off and amuse myself with the fact that I don't have to worry about these stats at all, regardless of what they had shown, while this thread inevitably turns to flame-war *tips his hat*

There won't be a flame war. If either of the above posters follow their pattern, they won't post again in this thread. Same thing Hardcore_Gamer does.

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.

image
image

Regardless of the falling amount of deaths, the reduction of a problem does not necessarily mean it Isn't a problem. US Gunviolence has fallen like this before, only to be expected to rise again. Which it is, by 2015 it's predicted that the amount of homicides in the US will surpass that of,

wait for it.

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Except traffic accidents, violent crime, and ALL CRIME have been returning to 1950s level. A historic low.

America is getting less violent, even with its lack of "strict" control. America has gotten calmer and there are less issues in America than decades before. Even in SPITE of the gang problem in the nation, and the cartel problem.

That alone is amazing when gang violence has been inflating numbers for a long time.

America isn't that bad, outside of our gang problem we are doing pretty good. Stop crying that the world is ending, it isn't. America has made great strides.

Notice in your own chart anything before 1979 isn't there. The 1980s and 90s had plenty of issues, including brand new drugs that made its way onto the market. Drugs which cause crime and made the drug trade and crime worse.

America has really nothing new to fear, or to do. The new world is boring, and that's a good thing.

thaluikhain:

Ultratwinkie:

wrong.

Suicide is a mental issue that doesn't go away.

Its not something only "pussies" do.

Its a disease that gets worse over time. Gun restrictions only delay the inevitable because none of these people get any sort of help. It does not leave on its own, they need outside help.

There is no "getting out of it" unless you were being emotional and hyperbolic. Which is a false image of people who kill themselves, and sets more stigma for an actual condition.

To imply that taking away a gun will stop suicides is insulting not only to the people who suffer from mental illness but the entire damn issue of mental illness. Stop it.

Did you miss the part where I said I was talking about the really real world? In the really real world, many people recover from suicide attempts. Yes, they may require outside help (not always but often), this doesn't change the fact that is does happen.

Because of this, in the really real world, Australia's tightening of firearm laws in the 90s led to a dramatic drop in suicide by firearms, without a similar increase in other methods.

Making suicide attempts less likely to succeed saves lives. This shouldn't be controversial.

'

The controversial part is that its only sweeping suicides into another category, often for some insane need to drag it into the fallacious gun debate so they could be right.

Suicides do not stop. They do not quit.

To go after the method of death and not to help these people is an indefensible position. It only serves to delay the inevitable.

And "may?" They do require outside help. It is no question, its not up for fucking debate. Real depression is not beaten by you just "getting out of it." Without someone to pull you out, you will drown in it.

The only demographic that cares about how it dies are women, a minority in suicides in the first place. Men do not care whether they die by knife or gun, just that it is done. Women, however, take pills because they feel the need to leave their body to be intact and "beautiful." Men are more likely to complete their suicides than women, so there is no effect there either because they are more serious.

So gun restriction to stop suicide is an exercise in futility, especially since America suffers much more from depression than Australia. America has 19%, Australia seems to be below 5%. The only other country with as high depression rates is France with 21%.

Even then, I am seeing some references here and there that suicides only went down after Australia had laws passed to specifically help the depressed.

Ultratwinkie:
The controversial part is that its only sweeping suicides into another category, often for some insane need to drag it into the fallacious gun debate so they could be right.

Suicides do not stop. They do not quit.

To go after the method of death and not to help these people is an indefensible position. It only serves to delay the inevitable.

And "may?" They do require outside help. It is no question, its not up for fucking debate. Real depression is not beaten by you just "getting out of it." Without someone to pull you out, you will drown in it.

The only demographic that cares about how it dies are women, a minority in suicides in the first place. Men do not care whether they die by knife or gun, just that it is done. Women, however, take pills because they feel the need to leave their body to be intact and "beautiful." Men are more likely to complete their suicides than women, so there is no effect there either because they are more serious.

So gun restriction to stop suicide is an exercise in futility, especially since America suffers much more from depression than Australia. America has 19%, Australia seems to be below 5%. The only other country with as high depression rates is France with 21%.

Even then, I am seeing some references here and there that suicides only went down after Australia had laws passed to specifically help the depressed.

I don't think anyone is saying that people suffering from depression don't need outside help. They clearly do. What's being said is that when you take away the easy, instant, mostly painless pull-of-a-trigger suicide tool, there tends to be a larger number of those people getting help instead of just offing themselves in the heat of an emotional breakdown. To quote what someone said above, "90% of all suicide attempt can be prevented if delayed by an hour or more." It's much more likely that someone decides to walk away from the side of the bridge than for them to decide not to pull a trigger. To blatantly steal from a Cracked article, "Adding a suicide barrier to a bridge in Washington lowered not just the number of suicides that occurred on that bridge, but the overall suicide rate (meaning those people didn't just go find another bridge to jump from). A study of more than 500 Golden Gate Bridge jumpers who were stopped in the act found that 94 percent didn't try it again." Link. In short, tighter controls on guns do have the potential to stop many suicides, and the number of people who you claim would just try something else, while not insignificant, is vastly overstated.

Wow, this thread has gone downhill very quickly, although I'm not surpred considering the topic and the second post in this thread. There are lies, damn lies and statistics and it's very easy to manipulate the latter. The statistics are still pretty interesting I guess, although the statement that "Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011" still concerns me.

I've never understood the distaste against universal background checks. How in the world did a process which is supposed to keep a dangerous item out of those who are not capable of responsibly using it become so maligned?

I don't even know how this topic has gone to talk about suicide.
Debating about the amount of suicides seems to be useless to me. Putting depressives as people who should not own guns will be difficult. A good solution might be for friends & family or therapists to comb out the homes of those who are currently taking depression medication for dangerous items, since most suicides happen while the person is taking medication.I doubt however that my solution will be adequate.

The issue about both gun control and suicide is a difficult problem which has no easy solution that I can see.

Sleekit:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

at the time of "operation iraqi freedom" 70% of Americans believed saddam hussain was personally involved in 9/11.

they believed that because their (republican) government was basically inferring it at every possible juncture.

ofc you will likely have forgotten that now...even though a pubic being sooo utterly wrong in their collective belief about a subject like that which directly led to their support for entering into war that lasted 8 years is not something anyone should ever forget...

It's depressing the way so many have already forgotten the political climate during the Iraq war.

I clearly remember the "reality based community" quote:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Big Willie has to be joking. I know that I'm not a paragon of logical reasoning, as anyone who've read my posts can attest, but his arguments are nonsensical. I've actually spent 5 minutes trying to understand what he said.

You guys realize without another baby boom America will never see another major bump in violent crime right? Unless roving bands of senior citizens on motorized scooters start gunning people down for their prescription cards, I think we'll be ok.

If you look at the violent crime rate, it was the lowest when all the young men were away during WWII. It spiked when they came home, and then it did a moonshot as they began epicly procreating. When these babies started hitting their teens and 20's in the 60s-70s, we see crime rates rise. Those babies have babies, the echo boom...

Birth rates in the USA are the lowest they've been in 100 years. Crime will continue to drop without young men, who commit north of 80% of all violent crime.

As for republicans and democrats, they're two sides of the same coin- both corrupt and criminal. I also really like the graph on page 1 which shows the US as this tall red bar that looks like it must be over 9,000. Then you look on the left and it says "3."

Here in Detroit, we are in the high 40s. Give anyone of those countries on that list Detroit and see what it does to their statistics. And the USA has over a dozen cities with murder rates over 20 per 100,000; so 3 per 100,000 overall ain't bad. Just goes to show as long as you don't live in a ghetto, you're fine.

I lived in the metro Detroit area my whole life. I move around the area, but I never live in the city limits so I'm safe. Most of the murderers that live in the city limits stay in the city limits, unless they want their get away vehicle to be a city bus. I read about one murder last month where a young boy killed two women over a 10 dollar bag of weed.

The baby boom never stopped for America's ghettos, they just keep on making babies without raising them and the government keeps the hand out money going. I wonder if that means welfare counts as state sponsored terrorism?

Homicide is not determined by the availability of weapons, but by the cultural and economic conditions that exist within a country. Thats why Switzerland has almost zero violence despite every other person having a military rifle, and thats why the UK has so much violence despite most guns being almost impossible to obtain for average people. The US has a lot of cultural and socio-economic issues it has to work out, and its getting better. Our crime rates are dropping, and deaths are declining. This with our loosening of gun laws over the past few years.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Thank you for this. I was in need of a good laugh today and this has certainly hit the spot.

So because crime stats are down all around( your rape stat proves that) gun violence is down? No, gun violence is down because all crime is down not because guns are causing less death because of some revelation in the minds of most criminals that they don't want to use guns and definitely isn't because of any new regulation. Just because crime is down doesn't mean you don't try to improve areas that need improvement.

All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals and no one is the wiser. The person that buys the weapon doesn't have to be committing the crime in order for gun shows to be contributing to the gun ownership of criminals. Think about it, almost every gun used was made somewhere and sold legally, America doesn't have some huge imported illegal gun problem we have a huge domestic illegal aftermarket problem.

Big_Willie_Styles:
I ALSO understand that the amount of gun deaths decreased after the assault weapon ban, and re-increased after it was repealed.

So... you can post your flawed studies to back up your desire to own your firearms for some paranoid power fantasy about blowing away the dude who tried to rob your house (despite that over 70% of home invaders since 2000 were unarmed, and 23% carried a knife or similar weapon), but it doesn't change the facts.

That is actually false. homicide went down at the same rate before, during, and after the federal assault weapon ban. In other words, the federal assault weapon ban had no noticeable impact.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[8] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Nikolaz72:

Skeleon:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

You just stereotyped Democratic voters as ignorant and having a short memory and claimed Republicans are all about wisdom. Please don't be so blatantly hypocritical when somebody points out the faults in your argument with a satire of your statement.

---

OT: Good to see that the situation is less awful and just horrendous then. Do you think this trend will continue? Do you have data for the recent decade alone? I'm especially curious about the development since the recession started: Did it go up again in the aftermath because of economic unrest and uncertainty, unemployment etc. or not?

I put some other related .gov stats in my post I believe. Firearms related crime is on the rise again, and deaths due to it will surpass that of automobiles in the US by 2015.

If you look at the stats of 1993 to 2011, you will notice something funny aswell.

They chose 1993 to 2011 rather than say, 2003 to 2013... Why is that? Look at the stats and take your own guess ^^

I love that they pick years democrats cracked down assault weapons and gun crime declined as "proof" that assault weapon bans are unnecessary, then faulted our short term memories when their own sources suggest gun crime has gone up since said ban's repeal. The ironyand hypocrisy just keeps piling on.

Nikolaz72:
image

And none of those things would apply to guns not carried in public areas. I could live with that.

dmase:
So because crime stats are down all around( your rape stat proves that) gun violence is down? No, gun violence is down because all crime is down not because guns are causing less death because of some revelation in the minds of most criminals that they don't want to use guns and definitely isn't because of any new regulation. Just because crime is down doesn't mean you don't try to improve areas that need improvement.

All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals and no one is the wiser. The person that buys the weapon doesn't have to be committing the crime in order for gun shows to be contributing to the gun ownership of criminals. Think about it, almost every gun used was made somewhere and sold legally, America doesn't have some huge imported illegal gun problem we have a huge domestic illegal aftermarket problem.

The murder rates in the US and Australia fell by nearly(within a point or two) the same percentage for the decade post the Port Arthur massacre laws.

dmase:
All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals

If you get into the meat of the study which clearly no one reading this has done you would find that "fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source."

Closing the "gunshow loophole" would still have not affect as it was not illegal for their friends and family to buy those guns in the first place. The fact that 10% passed a background check at a retail store shows that your universal background check won't do enough anyway.

image

Less than 20% of criminals even had a firearm at time of arrest

Frission:
Wow, this thread has gone downhill very quickly,

This implies it had a chance to not go downhill

Gethsemani:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Yes, people survive suicide sometimes. Totally. Because said people not only think they've failed at life, but they also fail at death.

Seppuku is not all that common, but it is one effective and painful and slow way to go.

The painlessness and speed of killing oneself with a gun is far more important than its effectiveness. A knife plunged up the throat is also effective, just painful and takes a little bit of blood letting before death. Throwing oneself off the top of a building is also insanely effective, but there's that whole "I can see my death approach slowly" thing.

Painless and quick is why people use guns. Guns also cost a lot of money, so it's not even the easiest or cheapest method. (A tall place is.)

No. No. No. No. As a Registered Nurse working mainly with suicide prevention I can't stress how wrong you are. This is ignorant bullshit and has no support in the scientific work on suicide. So let me give you some facts:

90% of suicide attempts can be prevented if they are delayed by more than an hour. This is because even when people are actively considering suicide they still have doubts. Just about all suicide attempts are made during moments of heightened emotion, usually fear, shame or guilt, and a majority of suicide attempts are made while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

Secondly, anyone attempting suicide has a threshold for how aggressive the attempt can be. Taking pills is the least aggressive way while on the aggressive end we find stabbing yourself and throwing yourself in front of traffic or a train. What's important to realize here is that shooting yourself is a fairly non-aggressive way. All it involves is pulling a trigger, as opposed to driving a blade through your sternum or throwing yourself off a chair and strangling to death.

Thirdly, the certainty and time until death also factors in. If you swallow all the pills you have at home you still have an hour or so before they really kick in, giving you plenty of time to reconsider your decision to kill yourself (this is usually what happens with intoxication attempts, once the initial emotional surge passes they regret their suicide attempt and call an ambulance). If you can't tie a knot properly trying to hang yourself is no good. Driving out to a tall place or railway crossing takes time, giving you a chance to calm down and reconsider. A gun is quick, even if aimed improperly it will cause serious to fatal damage if aimed at the head and you usually have it at home. You can have a gun loaded and aimed at your head in less than a minute after making the decision to kill yourself if at home.

All these together makes guns very dangerous from a suicidality perspective. They are easy to use and does not have a high innate aggression value, they do not require significant preparation, are usually kept at home and will cause catastrophic damage even if the suicide attempt fails. Many of the suicides committed with firearms could probably be prevented had the firearm not been available. This in itself should be a reason for better regulation of firearms, because no one should have to die because they are going through a rough period with emotional trauma that caused them to make a stupid decision.

thank you for your service and your interesting comment. I feel that part of the reason murders have dropped is because medical personnel are rising to the occasion and turning what would be a gun murder into an attempted gun murder.

Other countries still have far more problems with suicide and have much less gun availability than the USA does. While guns may be a factor it is not the driving force in suicide.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

That indeedy. In this two party system, being a Democrat is largely defined by "not being a Republican". This underlies a whole lot of ideas that don't necessarily go together though aren't mutually exclusive.

And no, the statistics just aren't in favor of the claim that low gun control doesn't increase violence. There are multiple statistics and studies here destroying the pro-gun narrative.

EstrogenicMuscle:

That indeedy. In this two party system, being a Democrat is largely defined by "not being a Republican". This underlies a whole lot of ideas that don't necessarily go together though aren't mutually exclusive.

And no, the statistics just aren't in favor of the claim that low gun control doesn't increase violence. There are multiple statistics and studies here destroying the pro-gun narrative.

The two party system does indeed suck a fat one.

I'm not arguing that low gun control will result in decrease violence. I am arguing that high gun control does not suppress violence.

and that is a lot easier to prove. if you look carefully at the Charts violence began dropping [i]before[/i] the clinton assault weapons ban, and never returned to peak after the ban expired

dmase:
So because crime stats are down all around( your rape stat proves that) gun violence is down? No, gun violence is down because all crime is down not because guns are causing less death because of some revelation in the minds of most criminals that they don't want to use guns and definitely isn't because of any new regulation. Just because crime is down doesn't mean you don't try to improve areas that need improvement.

All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals and no one is the wiser. The person that buys the weapon doesn't have to be committing the crime in order for gun shows to be contributing to the gun ownership of criminals. Think about it, almost every gun used was made somewhere and sold legally, America doesn't have some huge imported illegal gun problem we have a huge domestic illegal aftermarket problem.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" sales at gun shows have the same requirements as any other gun sale.
If you are from the same state, and that state does not require you to register firearms you can buy a firearm without any registration from a gun show just as you can from a store.
If you are buying an FFL item or are out of state then the sell at the gun show(or any other place) has either to do the FFL paperwork or ship the gun to your local FFL dealer.
The majority of guns that "criminals" use, and by criminals i mean gangs, organized crime and other "professional" criminals were not purchased at a gun show or any other dealer. The majority of those guns are either stolen or bought illegally from pawn shops and other establishment that do not follow the rules and regulations.
If some one in a gun show or not selling you a gun without a background check and registration when required they are breaking the law pure and simple. When they do that they commit a federal or a state crime depending on the item in question. There is no law that says you can buy and sell what ever you want in a gun show, even private transactions are regulated by state and federal laws, if you have a tax stamp gun and you want to sell it or even transfer it to some one they need to do the FFL paperwork and pay the tax just as if they went and bought it from an FFL dealer. If you transfer a gun where registration and background check is required even to your own son you need to go to a dealer to do that for you. The US gun laws might be moronic to some extend but they are not as lenient as people might think.
If any thing the biggest issue is that there are many laws on every level of legislation possible, from the federal level to individual counties.
The only loop hole i can think of is that if you move from a state that requires registration or deeper background checks to a state that doesn't it might cause some things to fall trough the cracks. However since carry permits are issued by the local police or sheriff departments once you will file a request for one they will require you to register the firearms and do a background check if it's required.

psijac:

Verbatim:

dmase:
So because crime stats are down all around( your rape stat proves that) gun violence is down? No, gun violence is down because all crime is down not because guns are causing less death because of some revelation in the minds of most criminals that they don't want to use guns and definitely isn't because of any new regulation. Just because crime is down doesn't mean you don't try to improve areas that need improvement.

All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals and no one is the wiser. The person that buys the weapon doesn't have to be committing the crime in order for gun shows to be contributing to the gun ownership of criminals. Think about it, almost every gun used was made somewhere and sold legally, America doesn't have some huge imported illegal gun problem we have a huge domestic illegal aftermarket problem.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" sales at gun shows have the same requirements as any other gun sale.
If you are from the same state, and that state does not require you to register firearms you can buy a firearm without any registration from a gun show just as you can from a store.
If you are buying an FFL item or are out of state then the sell at the gun show(or any other place) has either to do the FFL paperwork or ship the gun to your local FFL dealer.
The majority of guns that "criminals" use, and by criminals i mean gangs, organized crime and other "professional" criminals were not purchased at a gun show or any other dealer. The majority of those guns are either stolen or bought illegally from pawn shops and other establishment that do not follow the rules and regulations.
If some one in a gun show or not selling you a gun without a background check and registration when required they are breaking the law pure and simple. When they do that they commit a federal or a state crime depending on the item in question. There is no law that says you can buy and sell what ever you want in a gun show, even private transactions are regulated by state and federal laws, if you have a tax stamp gun and you want to sell it or even transfer it to some one they need to do the FFL paperwork and pay the tax just as if they went and bought it from an FFL dealer. If you transfer a gun where registration and background check is required even to your own son you need to go to a dealer to do that for you. The US gun laws might be moronic to some extend but they are not as lenient as people might think.
If any thing the biggest issue is that there are many laws on every level of legislation possible, from the federal level to individual counties.
The only loop hole i can think of is that if you move from a state that requires registration or deeper background checks to a state that doesn't it might cause some things to fall trough the cracks. However since carry permits are issued by the local police or sheriff departments once you will file a request for one they will require you to register the firearms and do a background check if it's required.

image

Whats your point?

psijac:

dmase:
All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals

If you get into the meat of the study which clearly no one reading this has done you would find that "fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source."

Closing the "gunshow loophole" would still have not affect as it was not illegal for their friends and family to buy those guns in the first place. The fact that 10% passed a background check at a retail store shows that your universal background check won't do enough anyway.

Frission:
Wow, this thread has gone downhill very quickly,

This implies it had a chance to not go downhill

Logic time, criminals tend to associate with other criminals correct? Do you expect most of the illegal gun dealers to have clean rap sheets? Now would those sources be able to get weapons at a gun show assuming they are criminals? As of now yes.

Think about it, a man that buys weapons from a gun show and then illegal sells those weapons and gets charged and convicted and will then be a felon unable to buy from normal shops. However they can still go into a gun show buy their weapons and then continue their business once out.

There are always stories of grandma's buying copious amounts of AR-15's then sending them to gangs across the border but really how often is grandma contributing to the illegal arms trade. Isn't it more likely it's being performed by a hardened criminal, one that more than likely has been charged at some point in their life?

But lets think about that last stat real quick, 40% get their weapons from an illegal source what are those sources. Drug dealers/off-the street 25.2 and fence/black market 7.4%. That means 32.6% are using weapons sold to them by other criminals many that probably have drug of trafficking convictions that could have just as easily bought it from a gun show. And who knows about the family and friends angle, because it's very likely that those family and friends are also criminals, studies show that criminals beget criminals and criminals hang with other criminals. Hell I'm not even sure if it's against the law to sell a weapon to a felon as a personal buyer since your not required to know if they are a felon, the only thing illegal is you didn't follow ATF's protocol.

Now 10% bought their product from stores think about that where is the failure? It's not with background check it's with those stores not running background checks. In fact it's a failure of the ATF because they aren't able to crack the whip on stores that don't run these background checks. The ATF has to have a huge amount of evidence to close down a gun store, some stores with violations that include LOSING weapons. 99% of gun stores do their job and get the background check however a small minority do a shit ton of damage by not following the law.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

So let me follow your logic here, we shouldn't make a law because it won't be followed by every gun dealer at a gun show. Am I correct in my assessment?

Verbatim:

dmase:
So because crime stats are down all around( your rape stat proves that) gun violence is down? No, gun violence is down because all crime is down not because guns are causing less death because of some revelation in the minds of most criminals that they don't want to use guns and definitely isn't because of any new regulation. Just because crime is down doesn't mean you don't try to improve areas that need improvement.

All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals and no one is the wiser. The person that buys the weapon doesn't have to be committing the crime in order for gun shows to be contributing to the gun ownership of criminals. Think about it, almost every gun used was made somewhere and sold legally, America doesn't have some huge imported illegal gun problem we have a huge domestic illegal aftermarket problem.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" sales at gun shows have the same requirements as any other gun sale.
If you are from the same state, and that state does not require you to register firearms you can buy a firearm without any registration from a gun show just as you can from a store.
If you are buying an FFL item or are out of state then the sell at the gun show(or any other place) has either to do the FFL paperwork or ship the gun to your local FFL dealer.
The majority of guns that "criminals" use, and by criminals i mean gangs, organized crime and other "professional" criminals were not purchased at a gun show or any other dealer. The majority of those guns are either stolen or bought illegally from pawn shops and other establishment that do not follow the rules and regulations.
If some one in a gun show or not selling you a gun without a background check and registration when required they are breaking the law pure and simple. When they do that they commit a federal or a state crime depending on the item in question. There is no law that says you can buy and sell what ever you want in a gun show, even private transactions are regulated by state and federal laws, if you have a tax stamp gun and you want to sell it or even transfer it to some one they need to do the FFL paperwork and pay the tax just as if they went and bought it from an FFL dealer. If you transfer a gun where registration and background check is required even to your own son you need to go to a dealer to do that for you. The US gun laws might be moronic to some extend but they are not as lenient as people might think.
If any thing the biggest issue is that there are many laws on every level of legislation possible, from the federal level to individual counties.
The only loop hole i can think of is that if you move from a state that requires registration or deeper background checks to a state that doesn't it might cause some things to fall trough the cracks. However since carry permits are issued by the local police or sheriff departments once you will file a request for one they will require you to register the firearms and do a background check if it's required.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

No background checks required.

While i'd agree with your statement about bad gunshops being the original source for most guns, that still only 60%. Now these are traced back to crooked gun shops but does that mean there wasn't a gun show in between the criminal and the gun dealer? I have no idea, the wording used in reports is too vague. However that still leaves 40% that comes from other sources, that is still a large number of guns even if it isn't consider "most".

As far as registration goes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

I count at least 35 states that don't require a permit for either long guns or handguns. And that doesn't even include states that don't require a permit for long guns or only has partial registration for handguns(which there are several). That in my opinion is ridiculous, but states have control as far as permitting and registration goes.

Also FFL paperwork only needs to be filled out by an FFL dealer. Between 50-75% of gun show participants are these people. The others are not and thus don't need to fill out the FFL paper work as far as I can tell, I say these because it makes no sense to have someone fill out paperwork for a license they don't have.

psijac:

If you get into the meat of the study which clearly no one reading this has done you would find that "fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source."

My question there is, however, "Where did the illegal source obtain the firearm?" If you want to crack down on illegal trade, you trace the channels thereof, and you go down the line of sources, and shut it down as close to the original source as possible.

dmase:

Verbatim:

dmase:
So because crime stats are down all around( your rape stat proves that) gun violence is down? No, gun violence is down because all crime is down not because guns are causing less death because of some revelation in the minds of most criminals that they don't want to use guns and definitely isn't because of any new regulation. Just because crime is down doesn't mean you don't try to improve areas that need improvement.

All also hate that 1% gun show loop hole comment. Duh criminal usually buy from friends, families, or back room deals but where do those people get their guns from? They go to gun shows buy them several at a time then turn around and sell them for a profit to criminals and no one is the wiser. The person that buys the weapon doesn't have to be committing the crime in order for gun shows to be contributing to the gun ownership of criminals. Think about it, almost every gun used was made somewhere and sold legally, America doesn't have some huge imported illegal gun problem we have a huge domestic illegal aftermarket problem.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" sales at gun shows have the same requirements as any other gun sale.
If you are from the same state, and that state does not require you to register firearms you can buy a firearm without any registration from a gun show just as you can from a store.
If you are buying an FFL item or are out of state then the sell at the gun show(or any other place) has either to do the FFL paperwork or ship the gun to your local FFL dealer.
The majority of guns that "criminals" use, and by criminals i mean gangs, organized crime and other "professional" criminals were not purchased at a gun show or any other dealer. The majority of those guns are either stolen or bought illegally from pawn shops and other establishment that do not follow the rules and regulations.
If some one in a gun show or not selling you a gun without a background check and registration when required they are breaking the law pure and simple. When they do that they commit a federal or a state crime depending on the item in question. There is no law that says you can buy and sell what ever you want in a gun show, even private transactions are regulated by state and federal laws, if you have a tax stamp gun and you want to sell it or even transfer it to some one they need to do the FFL paperwork and pay the tax just as if they went and bought it from an FFL dealer. If you transfer a gun where registration and background check is required even to your own son you need to go to a dealer to do that for you. The US gun laws might be moronic to some extend but they are not as lenient as people might think.
If any thing the biggest issue is that there are many laws on every level of legislation possible, from the federal level to individual counties.
The only loop hole i can think of is that if you move from a state that requires registration or deeper background checks to a state that doesn't it might cause some things to fall trough the cracks. However since carry permits are issued by the local police or sheriff departments once you will file a request for one they will require you to register the firearms and do a background check if it's required.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

No background checks required.

While i'd agree with your statement about bad gunshops being the original source for most guns, that still only 60%. Now these are traced back to crooked gun shops but does that mean there wasn't a gun show in between the criminal and the gun dealer? I have no idea, the wording used in reports is too vague. However that still leaves 40% that comes from other sources, that is still a large number of guns even if it isn't consider "most".

As far as registration goes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

I count at least 35 states that don't require a permit for either long guns or handguns. And that doesn't even include states that don't require a permit for long guns or only has partial registration for handguns(which there are several). That in my opinion is ridiculous, but states have control as far as permitting and registration goes.

Also FFL paperwork only needs to be filled out by an FFL dealer. Between 50-75% of gun show participants are these people. The others are not and thus don't need to fill out the FFL paper work as far as I can tell, I say these because it makes no sense to have someone fill out paperwork for a license they don't have.

The background checks are not required because the state does not require them, it has nothing to do with gun shows.
If you are not a resident of that state then the laws of your own state apply to any legal gun buys, if you buying a gun out of state they'll ship it to your local dealer to finalize the paper work.
As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal.
You can't sell or transfer an FFL firearm to any one gun show or not, without some one filling the paper work and paying the tax.

Alright, this is getting ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is this: The anti-gun have based their entire campaign upon lies and ignorance. They have spread false information and tried to scare people with baseless claims in order to promote their agenda.

THAT is a problem.

If they had simply cited the true statistics and said "...but we can do BETTER", THEN they might have had a leg to stand on. If they had been HONEST about the decline of gun crime/violence in this country, but suggested that we could make an even bigger impact, THEN they might have garnered the support they needed to get their bills passed.

The reason they failed is because they lied and tried to manipulate us into believing things that have been proven time and time again to be false.

And on that basis alone, I am GLAD they failed.

Nikolaz72:

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.
Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Ok, that comparison is ridiculous. Know why?

Cars are built safer now than ever before. What was a fatal collision in a car built in 1965 is now a collision you can walk away from in a car built in the 2000's.

Yes, laws require the manufacturers to build cars to a certain safety standard - but I'm curious, have traffic accidents altogether decreased because drivers are obeying more traffic laws, or are drivers simply surviving crashes thanks to the safer vehicle, and crashes haven't decreased in frequency at all?

I'm betting it's the latter.

No more comparisons between gun deaths and car crash deaths. That's a ridiculous comparison to make.

Godavari:

Ultratwinkie:
The controversial part is that its only sweeping suicides into another category, often for some insane need to drag it into the fallacious gun debate so they could be right.

Suicides do not stop. They do not quit.

To go after the method of death and not to help these people is an indefensible position. It only serves to delay the inevitable.

And "may?" They do require outside help. It is no question, its not up for fucking debate. Real depression is not beaten by you just "getting out of it." Without someone to pull you out, you will drown in it.

The only demographic that cares about how it dies are women, a minority in suicides in the first place. Men do not care whether they die by knife or gun, just that it is done. Women, however, take pills because they feel the need to leave their body to be intact and "beautiful." Men are more likely to complete their suicides than women, so there is no effect there either because they are more serious.

So gun restriction to stop suicide is an exercise in futility, especially since America suffers much more from depression than Australia. America has 19%, Australia seems to be below 5%. The only other country with as high depression rates is France with 21%.

Even then, I am seeing some references here and there that suicides only went down after Australia had laws passed to specifically help the depressed.

I don't think anyone is saying that people suffering from depression don't need outside help. They clearly do. What's being said is that when you take away the easy, instant, mostly painless pull-of-a-trigger suicide tool, there tends to be a larger number of those people getting help instead of just offing themselves in the heat of an emotional breakdown. To quote what someone said above, "90% of all suicide attempt can be prevented if delayed by an hour or more." It's much more likely that someone decides to walk away from the side of the bridge than for them to decide not to pull a trigger. To blatantly steal from a Cracked article, "Adding a suicide barrier to a bridge in Washington lowered not just the number of suicides that occurred on that bridge, but the overall suicide rate (meaning those people didn't just go find another bridge to jump from). A study of more than 500 Golden Gate Bridge jumpers who were stopped in the act found that 94 percent didn't try it again." Link. In short, tighter controls on guns do have the potential to stop many suicides, and the number of people who you claim would just try something else, while not insignificant, is vastly overstated.

yes, stopped in the act and didn't do it again because California can legally force you to get help with an actual doctor.

We cannot assume all suicides to be failures. We cannot rely on catching them to find people who need help.

Since America has a horrible mental healthcare system, there is really nothing else for these people. If there is no framework, there is no chance of getting better unless the government finds you and forces you to get better in a few states.

Verbatim:

The background checks are not required because the state does not require them, it has nothing to do with gun shows.
If you are not a resident of that state then the laws of your own state apply to any legal gun buys, if you buying a gun out of state they'll ship it to your local dealer to finalize the paper work.
As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal.
You can't sell or transfer an FFL firearm to any one gun show or not, without some one filling the paper work and paying the tax.

As my first link said only FIVE states require background checks at gunshows.

"As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal."

This statement needs proof because I have yet find any.

Someone can buy guns at a dealer and then go to a gun show. The FFL aspect was done at the gun store there is no requirement at gun shows to do this sort of thing though, so once you are there with the weapons you intend to sell in at least 45 states you are not required to follow any background check or FFL laws since you are considered a private seller.

dmase:

Logic time, criminals tend to associate with other criminals correct? Do you expect most of the illegal gun dealers to have clean rap sheets? Now would those sources be able to get weapons at a gun show assuming they are criminals? As of now yes.

Think about it, a man that buys weapons from a gun show and then illegal sells those weapons and gets charged and convicted and will then be a felon unable to buy from normal shops. However they can still go into a gun show buy their weapons and then continue their business once out.

Illegally selling a gun is a poor business model. How much do you think a thug off the street is willing to pay for a gun. If I was to sell a used glock at a gunshow I would expect $400 cash. The illegal business man will want to markup his product by what $100? $200? a thousand? The common street criminal will probably want to pay a total of $200. I could be wrong, but person who specializes in buying from gun shows just to resell to criminals, if such a person exist will want to make some money at the end of the day. He is not going to buy a $500 gun sell it to a thug for $100 and says to himself, "Think of all the children this gun will harm, Muahahaha"

There are always stories of grandma's buying copious amounts of AR-15's then sending them to gangs across the border but really how often is grandma contributing to the illegal arms trade. Isn't it more likely it's being performed by a hardened criminal, one that more than likely has been charged at some point in their life?

I have not heard that story, The last story I heard about someone sending guns across the border was Operation Fast and Furious and It was the Dept of Justice doing the sending not grannies

Now 10% bought their product from stores think about that where is the failure? It's not with background check it's with those stores not running background checks. In fact it's a failure of the ATF because they aren't able to crack the whip on stores that don't run these background checks. The ATF has to have a huge amount of evidence to close down a gun store, some stores with violations that include LOSING weapons. 99% of gun stores do their job and get the background check however a small minority do a shit ton of damage by not following the law.

Do you have proof that these gun stores are not doing background checks? The ATF would like to have that proof as they would love to raid these places. It seems to me that these criminals buy the gun before they have a record or they simply lie on the form. You don't even have to give your Social Security Number or specify your ethnicity on these forms if you don't want to, thanks politically correct movement

So let me follow your logic here, we shouldn't make a law because it won't be followed by every gun dealer at a gun show. Am I correct in my assessment?

We should not make this a law because we will not get the effect we want to have, a reduction in crime

MichiganMuscle77:

Ok, that comparison is ridiculous. Know why?

Cars are built safer now than ever before. What was a fatal collision in a car built in 1965 is now a collision you can walk away from in a car built in the 2000's.

Yes, laws require the manufacturers to build cars to a certain safety standard - but I'm curious, have traffic accidents altogether decreased because drivers are obeying more traffic laws, or are drivers simply surviving crashes thanks to the safer vehicle, and crashes haven't decreased in frequency at all?

I'm betting it's the latter.

No more comparisons between gun deaths and car crash deaths. That's a ridiculous comparison to make.

Who mandates these cars to be safer? The federal government, it requires manufactures to meet a minimum safety standard to sell they're car on the open market or drive on the roads and the fed also sets the standards for the roads and following laws.(National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966) Now the idea of a safer gun is irrelevant to the whole discussion on gun homicide, a safer gun simply mean the person shooting is less likely to get maimed or suffer accidental discharge. However more heavily regulating who it's sold to is how it could be controlled.

I'd also like to point some things that I didn't know. During the time illustrated on Nickolaz's graph there where huge regulations imposed on the most at risk populations including drunks, teenagers, and vehicles in relation to pedestrians along with vehicles requirements. These are all regulations that have reduced deaths by vehicles and an equal amount of regulation at least needs to be given for guns.

I mean how is it that we don't flinch at going to the DMV and signing your car up for registration that can be looked up by anybody but if there is talk of a national gun registry it's the federal government attempting to take away your gun and liberty.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked