I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

We get it. You have a fetish for being regulated, constrained and controlled. You need to be told what you’re allowed to do, you require boundaries on everything in order to understand your place, and you’re very hostile to the notion of people doing as they please, because that sort of thing is what you fear above all else.

See? And you think no one understands you….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Your obvious Freudian slip is 100% correct - gun control does nothing to take away guns from the people who shouldn’t have them.

It’s only about punishing the people who follow laws.

How are people "punished" by expanded background checks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

We get it. You have a fetish for being regulated, constrained and controlled. You need to be told what you’re allowed to do, you require boundaries on everything in order to understand your place, and you’re very hostile to the notion of people doing as they please, because that sort of thing is what you fear above all else.

See? And you think no one understands you….

Very telling that you think basic public safety is a "fetish".

There are limitations to gun rights. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.


No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

We get it. You have a fetish for being regulated, constrained and controlled. You need to be told what you’re allowed to do, you require boundaries on everything in order to understand your place, and you’re very hostile to the notion of people doing as they please, because that sort of thing is what you fear above all else.

See? And you think no one understands you….

We get it. You're an idiotic gun fetishist who cares more about the guns that you treat like toys, than you care about human lives.

See? And you think no one understands you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.


No thanks.

By your IDIOTIC logic, why do we have drivers licenses and driving tests, and insurance, and vehicle inspections, and vehicle registrations? Why should we care if people drive 100mph while blind ass drunk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Your obvious Freudian slip is 100% correct - gun control does nothing to take away guns from the people who shouldn’t have them.

It’s only about punishing the people who follow laws.

How are people "punished" by expanded background checks?

No one said anything about background checks. You are deliberately conflating your message. You advocate for banning the most common types of rifles and handguns available today under “common sense” gun control.

When you want to ban the most common types of guns owned by the citizenry, that is the very definition of punishing the people. You are taking away something in common use.

That’s a nonstarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.


No thanks.

By your IDIOTIC logic, why do we have drivers licenses and driving tests, and insurance, and vehicle inspections, and vehicle registrations? Why should we care if people drive 100mph while blind ass drunk?

Post reported for abusive language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

We get it. You have a fetish for being regulated, constrained and controlled. You need to be told what you’re allowed to do, you require boundaries on everything in order to understand your place, and you’re very hostile to the notion of people doing as they please, because that sort of thing is what you fear above all else.

See? And you think no one understands you….

We get it. You're an idiotic gun fetishist who cares more about the guns that you treat like toys, than you care about human lives.

See? And you think no one understands you.

Post reported for abusive language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.


No thanks.

By your IDIOTIC logic, why do we have drivers licenses and driving tests, and insurance, and vehicle inspections, and vehicle registrations? Why should we care if people drive 100mph while blind ass drunk?

So in your world: “swimming without a swimming license = driving drunk at 100 mph with no insurance or tags”

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.

No thanks.

The point was that safety measures decrease deaths.

You think there should be ZERO restrictions on any swimming anywhere? No fences around pools? Lifeguards? Swim test for the deep end, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Your obvious Freudian slip is 100% correct - gun control does nothing to take away guns from the people who shouldn’t have them.

It’s only about punishing the people who follow laws.

How are people "punished" by expanded background checks?

No one said anything about background checks. You are deliberately conflating your message. You advocate for banning the most common types of rifles and handguns available today under “common sense” gun control.

When you want to ban the most common types of guns owned by the citizenry, that is the very definition of punishing the people. You are taking away something in common use.

That’s a nonstarter.

Background checks have been suggested many times. They are right at the top of any "common sense" gun law list.

I'm not advocating for banning guns. There are multiple posters.

So you are good with expanding background checks? How about red flag laws? Improving LEO tools to trace guns/straw purchases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

If someone steals a gun from you, you are a victim of crime - not a criminal.

By that logic displayed, you would also favor rape victims be jailed because “they just aren’t responsible enough to prevent sex crimes from happening”.


Let’s not victim blame, m’k?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

+1

Almost every gun on the street today was legally purchased at some point.