Another day, another mass shooting in DC

[Anonymous]

NYC proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that point-of-use gun control has a huge impact of reducing the murder rate.

Sadly, they dropped that policy and murder has skyrocketed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we deal with the actual issue which is a cultural problem in the poor communities? Gun laws aren’t going to help because the guns are already here.

Shhh...not allowed to consider that possibility...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

This is two pronged. Existing laws don't really do much about the fact that straw purchase and trafficking is so easy in parts of the country and that is the predominant way that our local criminals obtain their guns. So our local city is flush with guns illegally obtained, in part, because of more lax laws in other parts of the country.

On the other hand, there has been plenty of data posted (I follow DC Crime Facts) about issues with local DC prosecution of criminals - i.e. DC has a high rate of declining to prosecute, offenders are arrested and let go too easily and commit the same crime again within days, DC crime lab remains uncertified which impacts ability to prosecute, and more...

DC gun owner here again. Great points, particularly on the first one about straw purchases. As a gun owner, I would really hope the firearms groups like NSFF, NRA, etc. would be pushing hard for cracking down on shenanigans like straw purchases and illegal firearms trafficking.

Sure, but there isn't much they can do when existing laws make it so easy. Unless *certain* states tighten their laws to match other, more stringent, states, there won't be much legal authorities can do to actually reduce these purchases. Lax laws mean hands are tied.

Leaving aside prescribed medication, it has been unlawful for decades to possess, transport, purchase, sell, manufacture or import a huge number of drugs. The authorities regularly confiscate huge quantities of those very drugs. What makes you think that more laws infringing the rights of decent people will work any better against criminals who misuse firearms. If criminal enterprises can import tons of drugs, they can import tons of weapons, including military hardware that currently is not often seen in criminal hands.

If you think “lax laws” are the reasons criminals have and misuse firearms, you haven’t been paying attention. Straw purchase is a federal felony, punishable by ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. A felon or other prohibited person in possession of a firearm likewise is a federal felony, and also punishable by ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. It is a federal crime to purchase or sell a handgun outside the purchaser’s state of residence, again punishable by ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine.

The problem isn’t guns. The problem isn’t “lax laws.” The problem isn’t straw purchases. The problem is criminal psychopaths, and the authorities that refuse to prosecute and imprison them.

If gun laws weren't a *part* of the problem, then criminals wouldn't resort to obtaining them from states with loose gun laws. The simple fact that they go to such states to obtain guns shows that in fact, gun laws work - but the problem is, they are not applied consistently.

Why do you only care about the end criminal, and not the start criminal? States without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a 30% higher rate than states that require background checks on all gun sales

Many gun dealers are still willing to knowingly make sales to straw purchasers.
A national phone survey of retail gun dealers found that half of the gun dealers indicated a willingness to make a sale under circumstances of questionable legality.
States without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a 30% higher rate than states that require background checks on all gun sales

Susan B. Sorenson and Katherine A. Vittes, “Buying a Handgun for Someone Else: Firearm Dealer Willingness to Sell,” Injury Prevention 9, no. 2 (2003): 147–150; Garen Wintemute, “Firearm Retailers’ Willingness to Participate in an Illegal Gun Purchase,” Journal of Urban Health 87, no. 5 (2010): 865–878

Gun owner here again. The first bolded statement doesn't surprise me, and I'd be interested in ways we can all get that number to be lower. What I don't get is where "expanded" NICS checks would help if it's gun dealers (i.e. FFL sales that are required to do NICS checks) that are making straw purchases. Is it just lax monitoring and enforcement by states and/or ATF of gun dealers in certain states? Or is there a more fundamental issue with state laws in those states?

Go poke around on the Giffords website, unless you're so worried their info is biased, you'd prefer not to look. I find their site helpful and straightforward, and most importantly, DATA DRIVEN.

I'll go have a look. Admittedly, I'm not all that familiar with gun laws in other states (or the black market), so I expect I'll learn something. I'm all for data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NYC proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that point-of-use gun control has a huge impact of reducing the murder rate.

Sadly, they dropped that policy and murder has skyrocketed.

What is point of use gun control?
I've lived in NY for 20 years and never heard this term.
Also did a quick Google search and could find no info.
Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 shot at 14th and Saratoga NE.

Curious how as soon as gun carry permits were forced to be issued in DC we started having mass shootings every other day. Imagine that! Who woulda thunk???? Giving people permits to carry guns created more ……. shootings!

Mind. Blown.

Did the person who did the shooting in this case have a permit to carry a concealed pistol in the District of Columbia?

Because if (as is extremely likely) they did not, your rant against decent people finally being allowed to arm themselves for legitimate self protection is pointless and even fraudulent.

+1

This is obviously the case. But otherwise reasonably intelligent, logical people transform into hysterical infants when the subject turns to guns. There is no rational engagement to be had.

The OP of this thread has a major problem with honesty. She is actually a prolific, pathological liar on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

This is two pronged. Existing laws don't really do much about the fact that straw purchase and trafficking is so easy in parts of the country and that is the predominant way that our local criminals obtain their guns. So our local city is flush with guns illegally obtained, in part, because of more lax laws in other parts of the country.

On the other hand, there has been plenty of data posted (I follow DC Crime Facts) about issues with local DC prosecution of criminals - i.e. DC has a high rate of declining to prosecute, offenders are arrested and let go too easily and commit the same crime again within days, DC crime lab remains uncertified which impacts ability to prosecute, and more...

DC gun owner here again. Great points, particularly on the first one about straw purchases. As a gun owner, I would really hope the firearms groups like NSFF, NRA, etc. would be pushing hard for cracking down on shenanigans like straw purchases and illegal firearms trafficking.

Sure, but there isn't much they can do when existing laws make it so easy. Unless *certain* states tighten their laws to match other, more stringent, states, there won't be much legal authorities can do to actually reduce these purchases. Lax laws mean hands are tied.

Leaving aside prescribed medication, it has been unlawful for decades to possess, transport, purchase, sell, manufacture or import a huge number of drugs. The authorities regularly confiscate huge quantities of those very drugs. What makes you think that more laws infringing the rights of decent people will work any better against criminals who misuse firearms. If criminal enterprises can import tons of drugs, they can import tons of weapons, including military hardware that currently is not often seen in criminal hands.

If you think “lax laws” are the reasons criminals have and misuse firearms, you haven’t been paying attention. Straw purchase is a federal felony, punishable by ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. A felon or other prohibited person in possession of a firearm likewise is a federal felony, and also punishable by ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. It is a federal crime to purchase or sell a handgun outside the purchaser’s state of residence, again punishable by ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine.

The problem isn’t guns. The problem isn’t “lax laws.” The problem isn’t straw purchases. The problem is criminal psychopaths, and the authorities that refuse to prosecute and imprison them.

If gun laws weren't a *part* of the problem, then criminals wouldn't resort to obtaining them from states with loose gun laws. The simple fact that they go to such states to obtain guns shows that in fact, gun laws work - but the problem is, they are not applied consistently.

Why do you only care about the end criminal, and not the start criminal? States without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a 30% higher rate than states that require background checks on all gun sales

Many gun dealers are still willing to knowingly make sales to straw purchasers.
A national phone survey of retail gun dealers found that half of the gun dealers indicated a willingness to make a sale under circumstances of questionable legality.
States without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a 30% higher rate than states that require background checks on all gun sales

Susan B. Sorenson and Katherine A. Vittes, “Buying a Handgun for Someone Else: Firearm Dealer Willingness to Sell,” Injury Prevention 9, no. 2 (2003): 147–150; Garen Wintemute, “Firearm Retailers’ Willingness to Participate in an Illegal Gun Purchase,” Journal of Urban Health 87, no. 5 (2010): 865–878

I’m all for prosecuting unlawful sellers. If they are that easy to identify, why hasn’t BATFE done something about it?

And do you seriously believe that if criminals can’t get guns from straw purchases they won’t get them by theft, robbery, burglary, black market manufacture and/or the same people regularly moving tons of drugs into and around the country?

Despite the childlike faith of what seems to be an appreciable number of persons, laws are not magic. Things, particularly profitable things, don’t stop because they are “illegal.”

Its ok, statistically reduce is good enough for me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am currently in a southern state and there are so few shootings.

DC is messed up.

You mean it's so common down here is doesn't make the national news. In Houston and Dallas shootings are normal everyday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

OK, Wayne Wheeler. I'm sure there will be no unintended consequences to that approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

OK, Wayne Wheeler. I'm sure there will be no unintended consequences to that approach.

I had to Google Wayne Wheeler. I can’t imagine how old and boring you are to make such a reference. I’m golf clapping for you, boomer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

Will the minions you’re sending to seize people’s belongings be armed with anything more than gentle persuasive words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

"Pragmatic progressive" is an oxymoron.
Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

"Pragmatic progressive" is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYC proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that point-of-use gun control has a huge impact of reducing the murder rate.

Sadly, they dropped that policy and murder has skyrocketed.

What is point of use gun control?
I've lived in NY for 20 years and never heard this term.
Also did a quick Google search and could find no info.
Thank you.

I call it "point of use gun control" and it has proven effective. Other people call it stop and frisk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the gun lobby and those who’ve insisted the second amendment is an individual right. This is your fault. The blood is on your hands.

There were a lot of homicides by firearm in the city before DC v. Heller (a LOT more if you go back a decade or two), so I'm not sure I see the direct connection here. I'll agree that the black market for illegal firearms is a real problem, and lax enforcement (and perhaps lax laws) are a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, laying this at the feet of legal gun owners, as the OP did, is ludicrous.

If you could somehow make all firearms in civilian hands disappear overnight, I strongly believe you'd still see a lot of violence in the same areas by the same people. Sure, it would likely be less lethal, but let's not just forget the other side of the coin here.

Legal gun owners should be pushing for common sense gun laws that help LEO do their job.

Legal DC gun owner here. I'd LOVE to see some actual enforcement of existing laws. That seems to be particularly lacking here lately. I'm not sure what new laws would be needed, at least here in the District.

Sincere questions for you, “Mr Legal Gun Owner”:

Would you support a law that banned your ability to possess a gun, to reduce gun crime?

If not, why?

If such a law were passed, would you abide by it? Knowing that you could no longer be a gun owner?

If you wouldn’t abide by such a future law, don’t you agree that that makes you too dangerous to own a gun NOW?




I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. I’ve never in my life known anyone who had a gun, so I find you types of people curiosities that I’d like to ponder and learn more about.

It's me, the DC gun owner, again. Just for the record, that wasn't me above saying your question was a logical fallacy.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Are you asking if I'd support a law that banned my ability to possess a certain type of number of firearms, or are you asking if I'd support a law that made it illegal for me (and millions of others like me) from possessing ANY firearm at all?

If it's the latter, it's really not a question based at all in the reality of public policy. I'm not accusing you of asking it in bad faith, but it's more from ignorance of the issue, which is understandable. If I understand what you're asking, it sounds like the implication is that making someone a felon by possession through no action on their part (law abiding one day and a felon the next due to a change in the law) is morally equivalent to someone who's a felon as a result of using the same firearm in the commission of a crime. I reject that premise.

Also, I doubt many people would accept the premise that going door to door to confiscate firearms would actually reduce violent crime in a meaningful way, particularly without creating a whole new set of problems at the same time. It's a bit like arguing we should reduce the speed limits on interstates to 40 mph to save lives. It wouldn't really do what was intended in the end.

Finally, I'd just add that I seriously doubt you don't know any gun owners. I believe you don't think you do, but I bet you do. We're not all a bunch of rednecks and/or right wingers.

If I'm misinterpreting your question, please clarify, and I'd be happy to address it further.

Blah blah blah TLDR, nothing but nra platitudes.

You did get at least ONE thing right though- going door-to-door and confiscating all them IS the only thing that will work. So that’s why I $$$ support any candidate willing to promote that solution.

I’m a pragmatic Progressive. Even if we outlawed all sales of guns tomorrow, that still leaves 400+ million of them in the hands of criminals, and would-be criminals, like you. So any gun control that doesn’t have a component of taking them away from the people who already have them, is a pointless do-nothing, non-starter.

We need the 28th Amendment, as well as the elimination of the 2nd amendment, and modification clauses to the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments with regard to guns, which strips protections for individuals illegally possessing guns after they are outlawed.

It’s a very simple plan. All we are lacking as a nation is the courage to elect people who will do it.

OK, Wayne Wheeler. I'm sure there will be no unintended consequences to that approach.

I had to Google Wayne Wheeler. I can’t imagine how old and boring you are to make such a reference. I’m golf clapping for you, boomer.

It's fun learning about history, isn't it? Actions and reactions in the past can often be a guide to the present. In the case of the policy changes you advocate, the 18th Amendment and the resulting Volstead Act may be the most analogous since they resulted both in a change to the Constitution that was ratified (as you advocate for) as well as a legal impact on a large proportion of the population. Where the prohibition advocates got smart was allowing people to keep the liquor they had rather than doing door-to-door to seize it. Perhaps you might learn something from the results of those actions and resulting unintended consequences.

For the record, my parents are boomers, so you're only off by 30 years. I'd prefer we focus on discussion about firearms policy rather than ad hominem attacks, as I thought this thread has been productive so far.