Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Sparko]

Well, regardless, law enforcement does account for many a dry spell in the drug world.

I find it a bit hypocritical of liberals (not you Adrift) who want to legalize drugs despite drugs killing and ruining the lives of many people, most of them youths, because "drug laws don't work" and "we should have the right to do whatever we want because freedom" - and in the next breath want to ban everyone from having guns because less than 1% of people who own them will misuse them.

[Sparko]

OBP, I would suggest that you try not to make a fool out of yourself in your continuous attempt to paint me as one. The quote very obviously puts the blame on both... wait for it... people, and their easy access to guns

we don't have to paint you as a fool JimL, you do that quite well all on your own.

[Sparko]

I've known two people killed by guns. In both cases people who DANGED WELL KNEW BETTER did something STUPID that resulted in death. There are very few things that can be mishandled and readily cause death and dismemberment to others. Chain saws, maybe, but they're frankly more likely to hurt the moron playing with them.

A gun is NEVER perfectly safe - only a fool handles a gun that way.

Neither is electricity. We should all stop using it immediately.

[Mountain Man]

People doing something stupid in their cars endanger and kill countless people every single minute of every single day, but you don't hear liberals crying about wanting to ban cars.

[TheWall]

People doing something stupid in their cars endanger and kill countless people every single minute of every single day, but you don't hear liberals crying about wanting to ban cars.

I thought the argument was based on intended purpose. That cars can be used to kill but we're not designed to. Whereas guns are made specifically to be lethal.

[Roy]

My emphasis:

Again, that's not a comprehensive list, and using criteria from an article you posted earlier which considered it a "mass shooting" if 4 or more were injured, you can't even claim that Australia put an end to mass shootings.

Yes he can, since the criteria posted earlier are actually:

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

While 13 gun massacres (the killing

© Copyright Original Source

You keep referring to Tassman as a moron, yet you are the one that can't remember and doesn't check.

I honestly don't understand the liberal mindset that just wants to ban guns and doesn't give a damn about the fact that it doesn't actually make things any safer.

Perhaps he doesn't give a damn about your 'facts' because they are infrequently facts.

[Roy]

We need a way to dissuade criminals from using guns while allowing citizens to own guns.

I suggest something like making the penalty for using a gun in the commission of a crime extremely costly. Where most robberies for instance carry a penalty of something like 5 years, I say anyone even in possession of a gun during the commission of a felony would get an automatic 20 year sentence without parole. And if anyone is shot or killed with a gun during the commission of a crime, they get the death penalty.

Wasn't there a case where an unarmed burglar was charged with murder because his equally unarmed associate was fatally shot by an armed householder?

Now that won't stop some criminals like Paddock or terrorists who clearly don't plan on surviving their attack. But thankfully those are pretty rare. Most gun shootings are committed in gang wars, muggings, robberies, burglaries and so on. If you know you will get a 20 year stint for mugging someone for $100, you probably won't do it, at least not with a gun.

I doubt raising the sentences will have any effect simply because most criminals assume they will not get caught.

[Sparko]

Wasn't there a case where an unarmed burglar was charged with murder because his equally unarmed associate was fatally shot by an armed householder?

it's called felony murder. If someone is killed as a result of a felony, all involved can be charged with murder, even if the person killed was one of the perps. It does deter a lot of crime. But it isn't used as much as it could be. My proposal is to make the punishment mandatory and very severe even for a carrying a gun during the commission of a felony.

I doubt raising the sentences will have any effect simply because most criminals assume they will not get caught.

Once it starts happening and they see that the law is serious, it will take an effect. And the only reason I am suggesting 20 years for carrying versus death penalty for actually shooting someone is that if we gave the death penalty for just carrying then criminals would think they have nothing to lose and would just routinely kill their victims to keep from being identified.

Will it work? who knows, but it sure has a better chance than merely keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns. That does zero to stop criminals.

At least my idea is targeting the perpetrators instead of the victims.

[lilpixieofterror]

My emphasis:Yes he can, since the criteria posted earlier are actually:

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

While 13 gun massacres (the killing

© Copyright Original Source

You keep referring to Tassman as a moron, yet you are the one that can't remember and doesn't check.
Perhaps he doesn't give a damn about your 'facts' because they are infrequently facts.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-famil...06-gk2vo5.html

[Roy]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-famil...06-gk2vo5.html

That doesn't excuse MM misciting the criteria.

[Mountain Man]

I thought the argument was based on intended purpose. That cars can be used to kill but we're not designed to. Whereas guns are made specifically to be lethal.

So? It's only when guns are misused that there's a problem.

[lilpixieofterror]

That doesn't excuse MM misciting the criteria.

Claim: there has been no gun massacres in Australia since the gun ban.
Fact: there has been.

Claim refuted, so please admit that claim is wrong. Thanks!

[TheWall]

So? It's only when guns are misused that there's a problem.

That's is kind of my point. Guns are designed to be lethal, but no gun fires itself much like most cars don't drive themselves.

[Mountain Man]

My emphasis:Yes he can, since the criteria posted earlier are actually:

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

While 13 gun massacres (the killing

© Copyright Original Source

You keep referring to Tassman as a moron, yet you are the one that can't remember and doesn't check.
Perhaps he doesn't give a damn about your 'facts' because they are infrequently facts.

And right on cue, here comes Roy in another desperate attempt to prove me wrong only to once again end up with his foot in his big mouth.

Here's the article Tassmoron referenced earlier:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

[Cerebrum123]

I think one of my main issues here is that I'm not convinced I'm getting the full data. I need a third party who is completely unbiased, and completely neutral on the subject to say "Hey, gun control can't work. All it does it make people more murdery."



Hmm. I guess I'm just misreading a lot of the posters then. I mean, I don't really know how I'm getting that off base, but the discussions I've been having with a few people here has me thinking that they sincerely believe that a gun is as safe as a baby's bottle or something. Like there's absolutely nothing inherently that dangerous about them. But okay, I don't know. Without going back and highlighting exact posts, all I can assume is that maybe I'm somehow reading into people's words more than they're saying.



I feel you're pretty much making the argument I've been seeing below:



Ok, see, I get this concept. I really do. No one wants to mess around with the guy with the big dog. I get it. But I think the idea that you can deal with violent crime by arming citizens is more likely only lead to the ramping up of more violence. If more law abiding citizens have guns, the criminals will get get bigger better guns, and they'll learn to shoot first and rob after, rather than just holding people up. Basically what makes senses to me is that you're just going to end up with an escalation of sorts. This side gets more guns, and then this side gets more guns. This side gets more lethal, and then this side gets more lethal. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. If you remove guns from the equation altogether, then you end the escalation. Do you see where I'm coming from? Of course, and again (because it seems people forget I keep saying this), removing guns altogether would only part of the solution, we also need to change the heart of a person, but...it'd be a start. I don't know. Maybe my way of looking at it really is the wrong way. But again, my gut tells me it's not.



The idea that people would rebel really makes me sad. It basically tells me that people worship their guns. They've made them a false idol. It paints a picture of gun owners as one step away from the type of people they're saying they need their guns for...law breakers. You're probably right that it would result in some major push back, but it makes me really sad that that's the case.

Just going to do a short response now since trying to go more in depth this early would probably lead to a lot more mistakes and potential misunderstandings.

I do think you are misreading them, I don't see anyone here thinking that a gun is "as safe as a baby's bottle".

I do understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where those much more heavily in favor of the second amendment are coming from. I'm probably closer to your view than many in this thread are. I don't think any stringent gun control will actually do anything to help the situation, but I don't think more armed citizens will necessitate lower violent crime either.

Escalation is a valid concern, but that will happen regardless of whether or not law abiding citizens are armed. Removing access, or restricting it severely, will just reduce the capacity for people to defend themselves against criminals.

The very fact that you think a rebellion would be due to a "worship of guns", rather than other concerns and fears, shows to me that you aren't thinking about this issue as rationally as you seem to believe.

Yeah, this went a lot longer than I wanted it to be. I hope I'm as clear as I'm intending to be.