Idiots

[Tero]

No more crap than NRA sponsored studies.

We make gun permits mandatory. Anyone carrying a gun without a permit gets prison. Anyone witha criminal record carrying a gun gets double. How else do we get guns off the street? Outside urban areas and the suburbia around them we allow some guns: no hand guns. You have plenty of weapons left for coyotes and lostmountain lions. Mountain lion walks into Kansas City? No problem, we give a permit for a well armed militia on a case by case basis.

[Tero]

Multiple idiots allowed to bring guns to Tennessee campus
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /74444990/

[laklak]

They don't know if the shooter(s) were students. A "dice game", eh? At an "historically black" college on the edge of the Nashville ghetto.

Yep, it's the gunz, what other explanation could there be?

[laklak]

No more crap than NRA sponsored studies.

We make gun permits mandatory. Anyone carrying a gun without a permit gets prison. Anyone witha criminal record carrying a gun gets double. How else do we get guns off the street? Outside urban areas and the suburbia around them we allow some guns: no hand guns. You have plenty of weapons left for coyotes and lostmountain lions. Mountain lion walks into Kansas City? No problem, we give a permit for a well armed militia on a case by case basis.

Well, around here at least you already need a permit to carry a gun. If you're a felon and you carry, or even possess, a gun, it's a mandatory 5 to 10 years on the sentence, depending on the crime. If you threaten someone with your legally permitted and carried gun it's a crime.

Funny, 58% of the American population views the NRA favorably, while only 35% views them unfavorably. Doesn't look like you'll get those new laws any time soon, eh? Must suck to be anti-gun, reality keeps shooting you down.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despi ... aign=tiles

[Seth]

No more crap than NRA sponsored studies.

Prove it. The NRA doesn't fund "studies" it merely publishes studies produced by those who study such things, so your circumstantial ad hominem attack is fruitless sophistry.

We make gun permits mandatory.

Okay by me as long as they are "shall issue," meaning anyone not legally disqualified can get one for free, like a driver's license (maybe it can be an endorsement ON the driver's license...) and it cannot be revoked for anything other than criminality or adjudicated insanity, and only by a judge, in a courtroom, at a trial or hearing pursuant to due process.

But this is all pointless because when you say "make gun permits mandatory" what you really mean is "don't allow anyone but the select few, such as political friends, to have gun permits."

You see, we've been down this road before and we understand your lying anti-gun doublespeak...like the favorite phrase of gun-banning assholes "common sense gun regulation" which actually means "universal gun bans"... and that is precisely WHY 40 states have mandatory "shall issue" concealed carry permits today.

This is because in places like New York City (and many others...all in liberal strongholds) while concealed carry is technically "legal" and there is even a system for getting a permit, it is functionally impossible for the average unconnected citizen to get one because the system is both discretionary (the decision is up to the police Commissioner) and deliberately slow, costly and difficult to get through. For example, you have to use the NYPD permit form...the actual form printed by the NYPD for CCW applications...which the NYPD has not printed in more than 20 years. Facimile forms or photocopies, or even downloaded and printed forms are not permitted. What forms they do have (or print on demand) are kept secret and locked away for the political friends of the administration and a very few other notables. If you are a poor black man living in the Bronx who NEEDS a CCW permit to protect your life, you simply cannot get one because first off, you cannot get a permit application form from the NYPD, much less show "need" to carry that will cause the Commissioner to use his discretion to issue you one precisely because you are a poor black man whom he thinks shouldn't own a gun, much less carry it concealed.

Discretionary issue is a stacked deck intended to DENY people their rights, which is why state legislatures all over the country have TAKEN AWAY the authority of local law enforcement to issue CCW permits AT ALL, or in some cases, such as Colorado, have made issuance mandatory for the local Sheriff, and have vested that power exclusively in the State. They have passed laws that prohibit those who issue such permits to assess "need" at all. The only authority they have is to do a criminal background check to determine if the applicant is legally disqualified already from possessing firearms and that, in many cases, the applicant has taken a basic course in concealed carry, usually defined as a course administered by an NRA-certified firearms instructor. If the applicant meets the standards, then the state MUST issue him or her a CCW permit.

And the permit does not, nor should it, record anything about the guns the applicant owns because what is being permitted is his authority to carry a gun concealed in public, and perhaps openly, but which gun, or how many of them he has, is not relevant at all because if he's not disqualified from owning a gun and is authorized to carry one concealed in public, the government has no need to know how many guns of what type he owns because he's clearly not a criminal.

So in reality what you are arguing for already exists, which is why more than 12 MILLION people in the US now have such permits, and fewer than 0.0001 percent of them have ever committed a firearms-related crime, which makes them far MORE trustworthy than even the general public, of which about 15 percent commit crimes.

That means that I, and others like me, are far, far more trustworthy and far, far less likely to commit any sort of crime, even the most petty of petty offenses than YOU are, so we should trust you far, far LESS precisely because you have NOT been through a thorough background check. Perhaps we should just lock you up on the premise that you might be one of the 15 percent of citizens who is going to commit a crime.

Therefore, you should be fully in favor of nationwide, universal CCW permitting.

Anyone carrying a gun without a permit gets prison. Anyone witha criminal record carrying a gun gets double.

Fine by me, with the above provisos.

How else do we get guns off the street?

Actually, you don't. That's the point of this whole subject. Gun ban laws only prevent those who obey the law from having guns. Those who disobey gun ban laws, who will always exist, are already facing a federal minimum 5 year sentence merely for possessing a gun or a single round of ammunition. How much more harsh do you want it to be? And yet criminals still get and use guns illegally. Go figure.

Outside urban areas and the suburbia around them we allow some guns: no hand guns. You have plenty of weapons left for coyotes and lostmountain lions. Mountain lion walks into Kansas City? No problem, we give a permit for a well armed militia on a case by case basis.

Mindless anti-gun zealots are a clear and present danger to society who need to be institutionalized.

[Seth]

Multiple idiots allowed to bring guns to Tennessee campus
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /74444990/

You lie.

They weren't "allowed" to bring guns onto campus, much less were they "allowed" to use them to commit a violent crime. They did so in violation of literally dozens of laws already on the books. My bet is that they weren't even "allowed" to possess the guns in the first place, and yet they did, illegally.

And that's precisely the point. There are 50,000 gun control laws on the books in the US and not ONE of them is able to prevent criminals for getting, possessing and using guns illegally because, well, criminals disobey the law. Are you really unable to understand this simple fact?

[Tero]

That's because you let them buy guns. It should be a stepwise process. Young hotheads (with no arrests or pot growing record) should only be allowed .22 guns and pistols, if you have to have pistols. Then when they are age 35 they can apply for bigger guns, in moderation. Three guns total per gun owner/hunter.

[Tero]

No more crap than NRA sponsored studies.

We make gun permits mandatory. Anyone carrying a gun without a permit gets prison. Anyone witha criminal record carrying a gun gets double. How else do we get guns off the street? Outside urban areas and the suburbia around them we allow some guns: no hand guns. You have plenty of weapons left for coyotes and lostmountain lions. Mountain lion walks into Kansas City? No problem, we give a permit for a well armed militia on a case by case basis.

Well, around here at least you already need a permit to carry a gun. If you're a felon and you carry, or even possess, a gun, it's a mandatory 5 to 10 years on the sentence, depending on the crime. If you threaten someone with your legally permitted and carried gun it's a crime.

Funny, 58% of the American population views the NRA favorably, while only 35% views them unfavorably. Doesn't look like you'll get those new laws any time soon, eh? Must suck to be anti-gun, reality keeps shooting you down.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despi ... aign=tiles

it's kind of interesting. The conservatives and TRUMP supporters are really pissed off. This is one way to let off steam. This is why they are in favor.
Conservative-Liberal Divide Stark in Favorable Impressions of NRA

While Americans overall view the NRA favorably, the favorable-unfavorable divide is pronounced among political ideologies. Among conservatives, 77% have an overall favorable impression of the NRA, contrasted with 30% of liberals. For conservatives this includes 41% who say they have a "very favorable" impression of the group. Ten percent of liberals share the same very favorable impression, with 45% saying that they have a "very unfavorable" opinion of the NRA.

The liberal overall unfavorable is 65 allowing some 30% liberals to want guns. Presumably the Bernie Sanderses of New England who think we are after their HUNTING WEAPONS. We don't want those. Only the hand guns and assault weapons.

[Tero]

And that's precisely the point. There are 50,000 gun control laws on the books in the US and not ONE of them is able to prevent criminals for getting, possessing and using guns illegally because, well, criminals disobey the law. Are you really unable to understand this simple fact?

The gun owners become criminals. many wait for decades and something cracks. I can see that the wife might not be safe, there are always baseball bats handy.Kill the kids in their sleep as well. But this shooting multiple victims is nearly always the first time the nut is in trouble with the law as far as guns go. They may be jerks in traffic as well, a clue we should not disregard. Any sign of not controlling your anger gets you on no gun list.

[Blind groper]

Effective gun control laws are already proven. In every western nation EXCEPT the USA. The biggest problem, as I keep pointing out, is hand guns. Three quarters of all gun murders in the USA, and half of all murders in the USA are done with hand guns. Half of those hand gun murders are done on impulse following a heated argument. If people could not own or carry hand guns, all those lives lost would not be.

The reason criminals get hand guns in such numbers is simply because hand guns are easy to obtain. If a 'law abiding citizen' can get a hand gun, so can a criminal. There is literally no way that you can make guns available to law abiding people and prohibit them from criminals. The two go together.

So make ownership and carrying hand guns illegal, and arrest anyone who has one in his/her possession. That is what happens in every western nation EXCEPT the USA, and gun deaths per capita are a small fraction of what happens in the USA.

Gun enthusiasts simply refuse to accept the simple fact that ONLY in the USA, where guns are easy to get, does 1 person in 50 get drilled by a bullet some time in his or her life.

Seth thinks guns are needed for self defense. But if hand guns were effectively prohibited, then no one in public would carry guns except the police, because a long gun is too obvious. With no one carrying a hidden hand gun, there is no gun to apply self defense against. As I pointed out, defending against a knife, club, or fist only requires the ability to run away.

[Tero]

The press is not indicating why this particular idiot was allowed to have a gun
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/us/child- ... index.html

Guess: he bought it somewhere. No back ground checks.

[Seth]

That's because you let them buy guns. It should be a stepwise process. Young hotheads (with no arrests or pot growing record) should only be allowed .22 guns and pistols, if you have to have pistols. Then when they are age 35 they can apply for bigger guns, in moderation. Three guns total per gun owner/hunter.

Nobody let them buy handguns. It's a federal crime for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to anyone under 21. It's also illegal for a 19 year old to possess a handgun wit the intent to commit a crime with it. It's illegal for anyone to commit a crime with a gun. It's illegal to possess a gun during the commission of a crime, like illegal gambling.

And those are just a few of the laws broken by these criminals, who were armed despite all the myriad of laws forbidding them to be armed.

So once again your argument is crap piled on ignorance and bias.

And if someone is qualified to own ONE gun, why does it matter how many he owns?

[Seth]

The press is not indicating why this particular idiot was allowed to have a gun
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/us/child- ... index.html

Guess: he bought it somewhere. No back ground checks.

You lie.

[Seth]

And that's precisely the point. There are 50,000 gun control laws on the books in the US and not ONE of them is able to prevent criminals for getting, possessing and using guns illegally because, well, criminals disobey the law. Are you really unable to understand this simple fact?

The gun owners become criminals. many wait for decades and something cracks.

So because 0.0004% of gun owners might "crack" all 300 million people in the US must be disarmed? That's just plain stupidity. Apply that to any other consumer product that can (and occasionally does) cause harm (like automobiles) and we'll all be living in mud huts.

[Tero]

Absolutely. There is no demonstrated plus side to owning or carrying a hand gun at all times. The chances of being shot in public are lower than the nuts cracking, your percentage of.0004
Possibly with the PIN operated gun you might get something. But Vi have ways of getting a PIN out of you.

But your home will be invaded, 100% certainty. Better keep the big guns at home.