29 Dec

What America would look like with strict gun laws

                                       

Following the Newtown massacre there has been an outcry from the left for more and tougher gun laws. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed another assault weapons ban with more teeth than the previous ban. Exactly what are consequences of tough gun laws? Let us construct a hypothetical place with some strict gun laws:

Let’s regulate the sale, possession and use of firearms.

Let’s regulate ammunition.

Let’s insist that those possessing firearms have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card.

Let’s ban automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles.

Let’s ban assault weapons.

Let’s ban magazines that can hold more than 10 or 12 rounds of ammunition.

Let’s deny gun ownership to those who have been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, are the subject of an order of protection, have been convicted of assault or battery or been a patient in a mental institution within the last five years, have been adjudicated as a mental defective, or are illegal immigrants.

For want of a better name, let’s call a place with gun laws like this- Chicago. Now let’s see what might happen were these to go into effect nationally.

The national murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000 in the US in 2011.

Nationally there were 14,612 homicides in 2011.

In 2011 the murder rate in Chicago was 15.7 per 100,000. This year Chicago’s murder rate this year is estimated to be 19.7 per 100,000. Among global cities Chicago is Number One with a bullet.

Chicago just celebrated its milestone 500th murder in 2012 despite an assault weapons ban and a firearms ID card and ban on large capacity magazines.

Chicago now has the nickname “The Murder Capital”

The exact number of gang members in Chicago is guesswork but ranges from 68,000 to 150,000 members in 70 to 100 gangs. Politicians and social justice activists do not acknowledge that the vast majority of gang members are illegal aliens. As a result, Chicago, with its large Hispanic gang presence, provides safe havens to criminals and dangerous crime zones to law-abiding citizens.

Although law enforcement officials estimate that the Latin Kings are the largest crime gang in Chicago, other observers believe MS-13 or Surenos (Mexican Mafia gang) or Barrio 18 may have the most gang members. The city also has black crime gangs, whose power is being diminished by the sheer number of Hispanic gang members. The black gangs, with a majority of their members U.S. citizens, appear to be joining forces to combat the Hispanic gangs.

With shootings a daily experience, Chicago has become the murder capital of America. On September 30, 2012, the Chicago Sun Times reported that, thus far this year, the city had 395 killings and 2,090 woundings, including70 stabbings; and this may be a lowball count. In one recent weekend, the city had five killings and 30 woundings. Many of the victims were innocent bystander adults and children.

Rahm Emanuel wants America to be like Chicago.

This is Chicago:

There’s something appropriate about Rahm Emanuel presiding over the Murder Capital of the US:

It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton’s chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe’s, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies – Democrats, Republicans, members of the press – who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remember it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.

”Dead!” he screamed.

Strict gun laws would make America look like Chicago. We could expect murders to quadruple, from 14,612 to nearly 61,000 per year. Four times the gangs, violence and murder. Who wouldn’t want that?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Freedom, Liberal Idiots, Politics, propaganda bureau, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, December 29th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
| 1,755 views

93 Responses to What America would look like with strict gun laws

  1. John Galt says: 51

    @Davis:
    I see that you’re trying to place blame for your lack of information at my feet.
    Let me help you out by forming a coherent question for you. What is the reason for my crediting Mexicans with the ability to adapt to a fascist leaders attempts at curtailing basic freedoms? It’s what they’ve become used to in Mexico. It’s why so many come across the open border and die on the way, just to find a little freedom to live their lives. It will be interesting to see the dynamic change as freedom seekers realize that they have no place to run and they are replaced by commissars looking for a new golden goose.
    The bigot comment that you made, I will just pass off to New Years drinking and say have a happy one.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 52

    @Davis:

    Ummm actually, there is a surplus of weapons out there, especially Soviet weapons. Many of the firearms confiscated in Mexico do not have serial numbers, which means they were not made in the U.S. or for the U.S. Smuggling them into the U.S. would be lucrative as there would be a demand. Guns can be broken down into their components and smuggled in. Did you really not know that? If they can smuggle in truckloads of drugs, firearms would be no less difficult.

    Remember the Hollywood shootout? Some of the assault rifles (they were real assault rifles) the bad guys used were smuggled in thru Mexico. Game. Set. Match. Stick to KOS or huffpo.

    JG, that is typical behavior for davis.

    ReplyReply
  3. Nathan Blue says: 53

    @rockybutte: And only liberals seem intent on stripping me of my “Moderate” status. Why is that? Cons give me a little flak, but they don’t demand that call myself a Liberal.

    Liberal Motto:
    “If your not for us, you’re . . . uh, ahem . . . Conservative.”

    I’m a Moderate, a Centrist. The reason I find myself active against some (most) prevailing “liberal” sentiments and movements are because a) they’re not actually progressive or liberal, and b) the tone is one of eradication of all those who disagree. That’s just wrong. Everyone has a right to think and believe what they want, even moderates.

    Seriously, I’ve had far too many Dem/Liberals tell me that everyone falls into one or the other, Con or Lib, and I don’t know if that was coming from the Obama campaign or not.

    I find your analysis of the media bias a tad light, and I’m not sure where you see “conservative mind control” out there in the world. For the past 12 years, the nation has been blanketed with anti-conservative sentiments and propaganda by a minority of those who control the media, mostly during the last 5 or so. I thought this even when I identified myself as Dem/Liberal.

    I will not be constrained by the tags politicians are using to discriminate against us. There is no meaningful dialogue, because–as evident here–some libs are simply going down a list of per-determined talking points and putting themselves and others in a box.

    Example:
    “Against abortion? You’re conservative . . . no, no . . . don’t try to explain yourself . . . you’re a conservative and the reason for why this country is backward. You hate women. Moderate? No, you’re a conservative because you disagree with what a liberal agrees with.”

    The above mock statement is why I’ve been against the liberals for awhile. I don’t see Reason or logic, critical thinking or love in what they are espousing. I only see oppression and hopeless attachment to ideals that will neither grant harmony nor peace.

    If the Right were coming across like this, I’d have issue as well. And the Right has plenty of things to criticize, to be fair, and I do.

    But don’t put me in your box and don’t tell me what to think. That’s the real issue with some libs these days. Victory at all costs. Victory over their neighbors? No, something is rotten in Denmark and I won’t let self-righteous morons, left or right, drag the rest of us down to hell with them.

    Unfortunately, you reaffirmed in me why I think some liberal thinking is rather dangerous, and taking us down a road that will be, in a word, tragic.

    For me, there are not liberal ways of thinking that need to be conceded to–merely good, critical thinking that will help voters and politicians fight the good fight and make good decisions. I’ve supported Dem and Rep candidates in the past, in equal measure.

    As I said, I’m a Moderate. Get used to it.

    ReplyReply
  4. Scott in Oklahoma says: 54

    I’ll say this about the media’s liberal bias, and will probably get corrected but hell, here it goes…
    I honestly believe that prior to the Viet Nam war, the media was pretty balanced and saw their role in civilization as one of reporting the events of the day and holding politicians accountable for their actions. The press wasn’t so much an opinion maker as it was a reporter of facts. Viet Nam changed all that. It was during that time, that the press discovered they could form policy for the government. They developed the influence to change decisions in government, not because they were holding politicians accountable, but because they wielded their power like a sabre. They are able to destroy a person and his/her ambitions, ruthlessly and without conscience; doubt it? Ask Herman Cain, ask anyone who has run against Obama. Ask anyone who has opposed the Progressive Agenda. So now, we have a media that forms policy that effects all of us, an un-elected and un-appointed arm of the government, working outside of the Constitution, working outside of the checks an balances with the power formerly held strictly by the elected and appointed officials in government. They have more interest in flexing their muscles and watching the reaction than they do in the best interest of our country. Until we rein them in, we’re fighting an uphill battle; until we get as loud and as ruthless as they are, we’re not going to get anywhere. Until we stop being quiet and polite, we’re gonna be on the losing end.

    ReplyReply
  5. another vet says: 56

    @John Galt: Interesting perspective. One side always underestimates the other and believes they will just roll over and play dead. The Crown underestimated the Colonists’ resolve. Lincoln underestimated the South’s resolve and viceversa. Prior to Pearl Harbor, there were people in this country and Britain who believed Japan’s military was a joke. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, there were still people in this country who believed the war would be over by the end of 1942. The Japanese believed Americans were too divided to unite as a nation and wage war going so far as to launch a propaganda campaign aimed at blacks in this country to get them to be sympathetic to the emperor. In every case everyone erred on the side of being too overconfident and the results weren’t pretty.

    ReplyReply
  6. Davis says: 57

    @another vet: And when Liberals erred on the side of caution that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of Mass Destruction, they were proved wrong. OH WAIT.

    ReplyReply
  7. Davis says: 58

    @Scott in Oklahoma: Because the alternative, that after Vietnam, and particularly Nixon and Watergate, Republicans were driven to insanity by the Southern Strategy and pandering to the whims of uneducated southerners, thats just totally unthinkable. No, it has to be a major media-wide conspiracy to hurt you.

    Its not paranoia if you scream loudly and constantly that its real.

    ReplyReply
  8. Davis says: 59

    @Hard Right: Uhuh. Uhh, exactly why do you think it would be cheaper and easier to get ex-Soviet weapons out of Russia, into Mexico and through the border than from China? Its nearly the same distance. In fact, its more borders.

    Oh, and unless the pieces of an AK-47 can be broken down to powder, you can’t break down and conceal an assault weapon better than you can cocaine or heroin.

    But lets say you’re right, that an assault rifle can be brought in by the same channels they use to bring in cocaine. So therefore, that gun will be sold for no less than what the smugglers could get for the same proccess being used to smuggle the guns equal weight in cocaine. So therefore, the rifle’s price will go up to $174 per gram, or $566,150 (yes, thats over half a million dollars) for one assault rifle, with one clip.

    Hell, even if they use the same channels they use for good weed, that’s still $200 an ounce, or more than $23,000 for an assault rifle. Go ahead, I dare you – find me a single imported drug in the United states that, if a standard assault rifle weren’t priced the same way, wouldn’t mean it was ungodly expensive.

    Oh, they’re gonna make the assault rifles cheaper than that? May I ask why? Why would a profit driven smuggler bring in weapons from outside the US for a smaller profit than they could get bringing something else equally illegal of the same weight? Simple question, and I’m waiting on an answer.

    Oh, and lets talk about the Hollywood shootout. You may have noticed that smuggling those weapons across the border took place before a nationwide ban on assault weapons. Which makes it easier and safer to smuggle them in. But even apart from that, many were smuggled from Mexico. MOST, weren’t. Are you getting the picture yet, or would you like a diagram?

    ReplyReply
  9. Scott in Oklahoma says: 60

    @Davis: So far, you haven’t made an intelligent arguement disputing anything said in this thread… little personal attacks are a sure sign your arguement has no substance.

    ReplyReply
  10. another vet says: 61

    @Davis: I did two tours in Iraq. If you choose to believe that Saddam Hussein was clean, that is your prerogative.

    ReplyReply
  11. Davis says: 62

    @Scott in Oklahoma: Calling you out on your paranoid delusions is not a personal attack. Its not ad hominem to point out the person screaming “THEY’RE OUT TO GET ME!” is delusional.

    ReplyReply
  12. Scott in Oklahoma says: 63

    @Davis: “delusional”? Hardly. And you still haven’t provided any intelligent substance. Until you can provide something of substance, your appearance here requires a suspension of belief in order to consider anything you write sensible and honest.

    ReplyReply
  13. Davis says: 64

    @Scott in Oklahoma: You are under the impression there is a conspiracy involving every facet of the media (apart from those that are most consistently found to have no basis in fact or reality) to reject and supress half the national dialogue, for no good reason. And for some reason, these multinational corporations that publish most of this news are involved in a conspiracy against the party of business.

    How is that not delusional? Because you don’t think you’re delusional? Because you’ve found other people who also don’t think they’re delusional? Because you’ve got self proclaimed experts who tell you you’re not delusional?

    And in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve brought the basest, most indisputable proof that a person can bring – math. Arithmatic and multiplication. I’ve noticed none of you have been able to actually argue against that.

    ReplyReply
  14. Scott in Oklahoma says: 65

    @Davis: So in your narrowly focused mind, there is no media bias, right? Alrightythen… is the sky blue there?

    ReplyReply
  15. Davis says: 66

    @Scott in Oklahoma: Yes, the sky is blue, and Mitt Romney was resoundingly rejected by the American people. What colour do your conservative “Unbiased” polls say the sky is?

    Look, lets make this clear so we’re both on the same page – reporting that Republicans are obstructionist ignorant bigoted dickheads is not biased – that’s reporting reality as it occurs. And if you’d like to argue against that, then please tell me why exactly the party that allows a man who believes the phrase “if its a legitimate rape, the female body has a way of shutting that whole thing down” to stand, who applaud the idea of the uninsured dying, who still favour tax cuts for the rich 20 years after we proved it doesn’t work – please tell me why these people should be taken seriously.

    Note – if your response includes any of the following phrases – moochers, Nazi’s, Socialism, Obamaphone, man made hoax, or Guam – your argument likely has no basis in reality. Please try again.

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 67

    @Davis:

    The man you quoted lost his election simply because other Republicans did not support him.

    Now, why don’t you address:

    Gerry Studds – pedophile
    Teddy Kennedy – negligent homicide (although his daddy’s money bought him out of it)

    Can you name one Republican that ever wandered off in a drunken stupor while the girl, who was a passenger in his vehicle that he was driving while drunk, died from drowning?

    Oh, and then we have the President of the Blue Dress Fame, who was also a Democrat.

    Seems you fail to realize that when you throw shit, the stain stays on your hands.

    ReplyReply
  17. Davis says: 68

    @retire05: You really want to play this game?

    Okay, lets dance.

    Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after “sexually explicit” e-mails
    surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year-old boy.

    Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper was arrested
    for soliciting sex from a 13-year-old girl on the Internet.

    Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year-old girl.

    Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an
    8-year-old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

    Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year-old girl
    and was sentenced to 10 years’ probation.

    Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year-old boy.

    Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one
    of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.

    Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl.

    Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty
    to sexually molesting 13- and 14-year-old girls.

    Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

    Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison
    for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year-old girls.

    Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the Internet.

    Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year-old girls.

    Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11
    and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

    Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

    Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

    Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

    Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded
    guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year-old girl he murdered.

    Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his
    computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

    Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years’ probation for taking naked photographs of a 15-year-old girl.

    Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year-old black girl, which produced a child.

    Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign,
    surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

    Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

    Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two
    8-year-old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.

    Republican activist Lawrence E. King Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

    Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

    Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor
    and sentenced to one month in jail.

    Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child pornography charges
    and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

    Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

    Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

    Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

    Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell
    admitted to an incestuous relationship with his stepdaughter.

    Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest
    for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

    Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged
    with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

    Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested
    for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

    Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on
    four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

    Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year-old boy
    and possession of child pornography.

    Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year-old babysitter
    and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

    Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail
    after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

    Republican talk-show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11-year-old girl.

    Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison
    for molesting an 8-year-old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

    Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters
    and served 14 years in federal prison.

    Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation
    for soliciting sex over the Internet from a 14-year-old girl.

    Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year-old boy.

    Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts
    of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e., exposing himself to children).

    Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year-old girl.

    Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a boy.

    Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

    Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

    Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl.

    Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty
    to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

    Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl
    and served 6 months in prison.

    Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer
    and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

    Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz,
    was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

    Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on
    five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the Internet.

    Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,”
    was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

    Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations
    surfaced that he went swimming in the naked with four underage girls, including his daughter.

    Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken
    was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.

    Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo
    molested his 6-year-old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

    Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp.
    Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

    Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of
    raping a 15-year-old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has
    allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large
    number of young women.

    Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in
    order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.
    See excerpt of one prisoner’s report here and his full report here.
    http://www.newsfollowup.com/children.htm#bryant

    Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.

    Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys — ages ten and 12 — during a six-year period.

    Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.

    Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.

    Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.

    Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.

    Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.

    Want more? I can go all day on this. Hell, we haven’t even gotten to the bestiality. Or Alan David Berlin, who got caught jacking off in front of a 15 year old boy, while dressed as a Panda.

    ReplyReply
  18. Hard Right says: 69

    @Davis:

    Ummm, hey genius, they are already there in Mexico/South America. They’ve spread worldwide. As far as breaking them down, it’s clear you know nothing about weapons, yet insist on pretending you do. Like I said, entire truckloads of drugs cross the border daily. Dissassembled firearms could come over by the truckload too. Comparing the price of drugs to firearms based on weight is apples to oranges, but you know that. You think you can baffle us with your bullsh*t. You are wrong.
    You really think a ban on semi-auto firearms will somehow make it harder to illegally smuggle in actual assault rifles? Jeebus, you are dumb.
    All you’ve done is display your biases and ignorance and declared them facts without knowing what you are talking about. Your “math” is garbage much like your, ahem, reasoning. Again, go back to kos or huffpo where they think you are smart. You just don’t measure up here.

    ReplyReply
  19. Hard Right says: 70

    Ummmmm, their are thousands if not tens of thousands of them in Mexico and South America already genius. The fact you try to base the cost of the weapons on that of drugs again shows that leftists are economic illiterates. Sorry, but you won’t be baffling anyone here with your bullsh*t. Again, drugs come over in trucks by the ton. Firearms could easily do the same.
    You really think that a semi-auto rifle ban would make it harder to smuggle in actual assault rifles? Wow. Critical thinking really isn’t your strong suit.
    All you have done is brought your ignorance and pathetic suppositions and declared them facts. You simply do not have the brain power to post here. Go back to kos, DUNG, or huffpo where even low grade morons like yourself wow the other leftists.

    ReplyReply
  20. Hard Right says: 71

    Ummmmm, their are thousands if not tens of thousands of them in Mexico and South America already genius. The fact you try to base the cost of the weapons on the weight of drugs again shows that leftists are economic illiterates. Sorry, but you won’t be baffling anyone here with your bullsh*t. Again, drugs come over in trucks by the ton. Firearms could easily do the same. Your math only proves GIGO. And a little FYI, the price of drugs here in the U.S. isn’t based on shipping costs.
    You really think that a semi-auto rifle ban would make it harder to smuggle in actual assault rifles? Wow. Critical thinking really isn’t your strong suit.
    All you have done is brought your ignorance and pathetic suppositions and declared them facts. You simply do not have the brain power to post here. Go back to kos, DUNG, or huffpo where even low grade morons like yourself wows the other leftists.

    ReplyReply
  21. Hard Right says: 72

    @Hard Right: Uhuh. Uhh, exactly why do you think it would be cheaper and easier to get ex-Soviet weapons out of Russia, into Mexico and through the border than from China? Its nearly the same distance. In fact, its more borders.

    I never said that they would have to imported from Russia or China. YOU did. As I previously stated, they are already there in Mexico and South America.

    Oh, and unless the pieces of an AK-47 can be broken down to powder, you can’t break down and conceal an assault weapon better than you can cocaine or heroin.

    You are actually correct on that. However, when I see where semi trucks with false walls or beds in the trailer are making it over the border, your argument is moot.

    But lets say you’re right, that an assault rifle can be brought in by the same channels they use to bring in cocaine. So therefore, that gun will be sold for no less than what the smugglers could get for the same proccess being used to smuggle the guns equal weight in cocaine. So therefore, the rifle’s price will go up to $174 per gram, or $566,150 (yes, thats over half a million dollars) for one assault rifle, with one clip.

    Ummmm, no. Guns are not sold by weight nor would they be. As for the price of cocaine, you seem to be going with the street value. Little FYI, it doesn’t cost $174 a gram to produce. The dealers take a kilo and dilute it (step on it) to maximize their profits. The fact you try to claim a single AK-47 would cost 500K+ makes me think you are a troll. That’s being generous. BTW, it’s a magazine, not a clip that goes into the rifle. Your “math” simply proves GIGO.
    A semi-auto ban in the U.S. will prevent actual assault rifles from getting into the U.S? Riiiiiiight. That ban on illegal drugs has sure kept them out out.

    I would like to thank systems issues for my double post. :P

    ReplyReply
  22. Randy says: 73

    Townhall Columnists Walter E. Williams

    Why the 2nd Amendment
    Walter E. Williams

    Jan 02, 2013
    Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: “The British are not coming. … We don’t need all these guns to kill people.” Lewis’ vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

    Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” adding later, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says “the representatives of the people”?

    James Madison: “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
    Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

    George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, said, “To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    Rep. John Lewis and like-minded people might dismiss these thoughts by saying the founders were racist anyway. Here’s a more recent quote from a card-carrying liberal, the late Vice President Hubert H.

    Humphrey: “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. … The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.” I have many other Second Amendment references at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes.html.

    How about a couple of quotations with which Rep. Lewis and others might agree? “Armas para que?” (translated: “Guns, for what?”) by Fidel Castro. There’s a more famous one: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” That was Adolf Hitler.
    Here’s the gun grabbers’ slippery-slope agenda, laid out by Nelson T. Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc.: “We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. … Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. … The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal” (The New Yorker, July 1976).
    There have been people who’ve ridiculed the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, asking what chance would citizens have against the military might of the U.S. government. Military might isn’t always the deciding factor. Our 1776 War of Independence was against the mightiest nation on the face of the earth — Great Britain. In Syria, the rebels are making life uncomfortable for the much-better-equipped Syrian regime. Today’s Americans are vastly better-armed than our founders, Warsaw Ghetto Jews and Syrian rebels.

    There are about 300 million privately held firearms owned by Americans. That’s nothing to sneeze at. And notice that the people who support gun control are the very people who want to control and dictate our lives.

    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

    COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

    ReplyReply
  23. Davis says: 74

    @Hard Right: Are they producing easily obtainable assault weapons in South America and Mexico? (No, the FX-05 is not a source for illegal guns, its damn near impossible to steal effectively http://www.banderasnews.com/0711/nr-fx05.htm , there are only 170 Peruvian FAD’s in the world so getting your hands on one is extremely tricky, and the Brazilian LAPA has been out of manufacturing for decades and sucked to begin with) No? Then they need a source in China and Russia. Or Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Australia, pretty much any assault weapon producing country. Selling the guns that are already in Mexico to Americans is not a long term plan, or a sustainable one.

    Yes, you can smuggle a lot in false walls. But my point, that you missed again, is that – you can smuggle a lot. Its the most basic law of economics in existence, supply and demand – if the demand is not as high as it is for drugs of equal weight and volume, they’re gonna ignore it. These smugglers are not forced to bring in weapons, they need a reason to. And that reason will center around it being more profitable for them to bring in weapons that for them to bring in the equivalent weight (or mass, but considering any assault rifle will displace more mass than compactible drugs equivalent in weight, that would just make it pricier) of drugs. And I just told you what that would mean a gun would have to cost.

    If a smuggler can make more profit bringing in drugs than weapons, they will bring in drugs, not weapons. And the only way for those weapons to make them more is to be priced to an equivalent (remember, assault weapons will need to go through middlemen too, making the claim that the price is brought up by dealers moot).

    So again, the thing that will stop assault weapons getting in is price.

    ReplyReply
  24. retire05 says: 75

    @Davis:

    You seem to think that the guns our own government sold to the Mexican drug cartel will not make their way back to our soil. I think Brian Terry’s parents would disagree with that premise. And the fact that those very Fast and Furious guns have been found at at least eleven other crime scenes in the U.S.

    If a smuggler can make more money smuggling drugs, why do they then smuggle humans across the border, and not just stick with drugs? But according to you, we are to assume that a firearm would be harder to hide than a man who is 5’8″ and weighs 165 lbs.

    Also, you may want to get into a pissing contest about elected officials who have committed crimes, but I noticed you didn’t mention any Democrats in your list. The difference between Democrats, and Republicans, who molest children are that the Republicans resign. Democrats refuse and continue to be re-elected. Gerry Studds is a prime example; having had sex with a 17 year old (a minor), even taking that minor out of the country with him, what did he do when caught? He refused to resign, turned his back on the House when he was sanctioned, and then all the Democrats took to the steps of Congress to voice their support for him. The idiots that reside in Massachusetts continued to re-elect Studds, just as they continued to re-elect a man who willfully allowed a young woman to drown, due to his drunken driving. But then, perhaps Barney Frank is your idol.

    ReplyReply
  25. Hard Right says: 76

    Anyone else notice the troll didn’t return?
    500k for an ak-47? Too funny.

    ReplyReply
  26. Davis says: 77

    @retire05: Wait, the guns sold in Fast and Furious are magically regenerating, and can reform into an endless number of guns stretching infinitely into the future? You’re right, that is a problem.

    Oh, they aren’t? Its a few hundred guns, that aren’t even close to a viable supply for a smuggling operation? So, you admit your point is emotionally manipulative bullcrap with no relevance to this discussion?

    But please, feel free to tell them parents of those 20 children killed in Conneticut, tell them why it would be so dangerous for everyone if Adam Lanza was prevented from getting his hands on the gun that killed those poor, innocent kids. Please, do so.

    A man can walk, you complete and total moron, a gun can’t. I know that may be hard for you to grasp, but a gun isn’t alive, and so cannot use the same channels as illegals, which involve multiple stages, including but not limitted to swimming river and hiding from snipers. No people smuggling route is ever direct, and for a non living thing like a gun, it needs a direct route.

    Oh, and you know the real difference between Republicans and Democrats? You can name only one Democrat pedophile, who was caught having sex with someone one year outside the age of consent. I easily named 70 different Republicans, many of whom have been caught with children as young as 8 years old. Oh, and you see, the Republicans resign cause they go to jail, or get fired.

    No, I didn’t list any Democrats. And Retire05 didn’t list any Republicans. Did you chew him out for that? Oh, you didn’t? Well, I wonder why.

    ReplyReply
  27. Davis says: 78

    @Hard Right: Math usually looks laughable to people who can’t do it.

    ReplyReply
  28. Hard Right says: 79

    @Davis:

    Considering you were the one trying to say an AK-47 would cost 500K, I would say math isn’s one of your skills either. How about addressing how I destroyed your arguments, troll boy.

    ReplyReply
  29. retire05 says: 80

    @Davis:

    It’s a few hundred guns.

    [Fast and Furious weapons]

    that aren’t even close to a viable supply for a smuggling operation? So you admit that your point is emotionally manipulative bullcrap with no relevance to this discussion?

    Sorry, Davis, your Saul Alinsky tricks won’t work on me. First, you misrepresent the number of F&F weapons our government sold to Mexican drug cartel memeber, the number being well over two thousand, not “a few hundred” and then you go on to insult me so that the response is not to call you down on your blatant misrepresentation of actual facts, but to concentrate on the insult.

    A man can walk, you total and complete moron, a gun can’t. I know that may be hard for you to grasp, but a gun isn’t alive, and so cannot use the same channels as a illegals, which involve multiple stages, including by not limmited to swimming river and hiding from snipers. No people smuggling route is ever direct, and for a non living thing like a gun, it needs a direct route.

    That is the most convoluted mess I have ever read by anyone who posts here. Were you a little tipsy when you wrote that mess?

    You say that guns are responsible for the deaths of many, yet………….now you claim that a gun is a non-living thing. Well, Davis, if it requires a human being to smuggle a gun across our national border, it also requires a human being to pull that gun’s trigger in order for that gun to be able to kill. Now, since you seemed to be a bit incoherent in your last diabribe, perhaps you should define the difference between a indirect route for human smuggling and a direct route for gun smuggling? Or do you think that some gun runner loads up his cargo on a plane in Mexico City and then drops them down on the gangbangers in Chicago from the air? That would be a “direct” route.

    But you are right, Davis; a gun can’t walk, and it also can’t pull its own trigger. As to the Newtown shooter (I refuse to say his name or put it in print because that is exactly what he wanted) his weapons were stolen from his mother that he murdered in order to get them. Perhaps you have a solution to how to keep guns out of the hands of those who obtain them illegally without punishing the law abiding citizen who will never use his weapon against another human being except in personal defense, now that you have admitted a gun is a non-living thing that cannot operate on its own and requires human activity?

    As to Gerry Studds; the only reason he did not go to jail was not because the child in question was “one year beyond the age of consent” (he wasn’t; legal age in D.C. at the time was 18, currently 17), it was because he was a Democrat who had the entire support of the party that lacks morals. I can name others, but frankly, I don’t see the point except you want to make Republicans appear worse than Democrats. Oddly enough, I don’t remember any Republicans operating gay whore houses out of their own apartments and if they did, they would not remain in office. Perhaps you just missed the names of George Rogers, Gary Becker, Robert Decheine, Mel Reynolds and Fred Richmond, to name a few.

    My point was that while Republicans resign, or go to jail, Democrats continue to hold on to their power at any cost, and are supported by the rest of the Democrat party elitists. Thanks for confirming that. Teddy Kennedy allowed a young girl to drown; he got a slap on the hand and re-elected. Gerry Studds had an affair with an underage minor boy; he got a slap on the hand and re-elected. Barney Franks ran a whore house out of his apartment; he got a slap on the hand and re-elected. Seems to me that there is enough trash to go around, except Democrats stand behind their criminals.

    Now, perhaps you should take a brake and think about your debate abilities. Insulting those you are debating with is a tactic, perfected by the left, in order to avoid the actual issues. You seem to have learned that tactic well, but it only makes you look foolish.

    ReplyReply
  30. Randy says: 81

    @Davis: I have a simple question. If a gun can not walk like a person, then how can a gun all by itself kill like a person?

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 82

    Chicago is the perfect illustration of what the country would look like.

    -Chicago itself doesn’t sell guns, except in the black market. It acquires them through theft and smuggling from other parts of the country, or by it’s citizens acquiring them legally in other areas of the state, or country, and breaking the law on ownership as soon as they enter Chicago.

    This can be related to an international scale, if gun laws across the US were like Chicago’s laws. The guns would still find their way here, by theft and smuggling from other countries where guns are legal to sell, and the overwhelming majority of the citizenry would still follow the laws, not acquiring any firearms, leaving them open to assault by those criminals who haven’t cared about breaking the law, hence the term criminal. Honest citizens would be more subject to violence and theft, without any means of protection.

    You say it cannot happen? Then you apparently have missed what is going on in Australia and Great Britain, where honest citizens have no means of protection. Violent crime is up, and guns are still being used in the crimes. And where the murderers cannot obtain firearms, they commit their acts with other weapons, such as knives, ball bats, clubs, shanks made from common materials, etc. The murders still happen, just in different ways, mostly, though the real violent atrocities are still committed with firearms, all while the country itself has bans on ownership of them.

    The murders in those countries where firearms are heavily regulated, or banned, happen in almost a universal 1 to 3 split, where firearms account for one out of four, while other weapons are used in the three out of four. Here in the US, that split is 3 to 1, or thereabouts. And since most murders are still fairly private affairs, unlike the public displays of Newtown, other weapons would be used, if firearms could not be obtained, and the murders would still happen, regardless of the severity of the laws on firearms. The only difference is that their would be more of them, as those people who have protected themselves using firearms, and prevented themselves from becoming victims, would then have no means of protection, and thus, murdered. Or subjected to rape. Or mugging. Or home invasion.

    If you think that cannot happen, I respectfully request that you research England and Australia prior to their gun bans, and then after, specifically in the category of murder.
    -England, for example, prior to their 1997 ban on handguns, had a murder rate in the low 2′s per 100k citizens. After the ban on handguns, the murder rate dropped to a low of 1.9 in 1999, and then promptly escalated back to it’s historical(past few decades) rate of 2.2-2.3 per 100k citizens. The only difference? Instead of the murders happening in 2:1 or 3:1 ratios of guns/other weapons, the murders now happen at the 1:2 or 1:3 rate I mentioned above. Meaning, guns were responsible for less murders, but overall the murders were still being committed.

    -In Australia, the gun bans happened in 96′. Australia’s historical murder rates(past few decades) was just under 2 per 100k people. After the gun ban and buyback program, the gun murders dropped, but the total murder rate stayed in that same 1.8-1.9 per 100k people range. Murders by other means increased, making up for the loss of firearms related murders. Prior to the gun bans in Australia, murders with more than four people dead due to gunshot wounds happened. Afterwards, only one. However, there have been numerous instances, since the ban, of mass murders happening by other means, including an arson in which 15 people were killed by burning to death. Violent crime in Australia has increased since the gun ban went into effect, particularly in recent years, much like England.

    -Overall, the only thing that the two gun bans did was reduce the numbers of murders due to firearms. There has been no visible reduction in total murders, however, meaning that the people who would commit such crimes simply chose other ways to commit those murders. And since the people had less ability to protect themselves, I’d say that the effect of the gun bans made the people less safe, overall, than before.

    All of the above stats can be googled quite easily by anyone, and I urge you to do so. The math is easily verifiable, as well, if one so chooses.

    Is Chicago the example you liberal/progressives wish us to live up to? Or England and Australia? No thanks.

    ReplyReply
  32. Davis says: 83

    @Randy: A gun can kill from accidental discharge of a weapon. Kills 100,000 Americans a year.

    Do you have any other stupid questions?
    @Hard Right: You mean by doing absolutely nothing but by thinking that a big number, that I backed up by the simple equivalency of weights and the difficulty of direct importing from Mexico of illegals substances, is wrong?

    Just because you fear large numbers, and find your brain shutting down when you see them, that doesn’t mean you attack the numbers.

    @retire05: Yes, because the Mexican drug cartels are gonna sell all their weapons to the United States. Cause that’s all kinds of logical, and is totally what a criminal organization at war with the Mexican government would do.

    And calling your argument emotionally manipulative bullcrap is not insulting you, its pointing out you attempting to try and muddy the issue by bringing up a complete irrelevance.

    Oh goody, the “guns don’t kill people” argument. Because that piece of crap isn’t laughable everywhere outside the most ignorant gun nut circles.

    Look, here’s the simple thing – a guns only purpose in this world is to kill people. That is all it does. It is the most efficient way of killing people outside of a goddamn bomb. A gun amplifies a persons ability to kill others by several hundred times. So maybe we don’t need to let people have things that let them kill each other more efficiently.

    You see, the simple solution, which I have typed out numerous times, is to outlaw assault weapons, with the heightened price putting a gun out of reach for most criminals. You may have noticed that the Newtown shooter stole his weapon from someone who got it legally, a woman who never once got to use it for personal defence. Therefore, if it had been banned, that sick psychopath would have never used that weapon to kill innocent kids. But if you want to make it easier for future Newtown Killers to do these horrible atrocities, thats on your head, not mine.

    Oh, and one last thing – please tell me exactly why, if the weapon is for personal defense, a law abiding citizen needs an assault weapon capable of killing twenty children – please tell me why a handgun isn’t all the protection a reasonable human being would need.

    ReplyReply
  33. johngalt says: 84

    @Davis:

    please tell me why a handgun isn’t all the protection a reasonable human being would need.

    Because it’s not your place to say what should, or shouldn’t, make a person feel safer. If a person feels safe enough with a handgun, then so be it. If they would rather use a shotgun with buckshot, then ok. And if they feel safest using, say, a DPMS .223 or .308 semi-auto rifle, then who are you to say that they are overdoing it? What qualifications do you possess that lends expert opinion on what a person should feel safest with? Do you know the capabilities of the various firearms and their uses, and what is best for home defense? Somehow, from your numerous other comments in this topic, I highly doubt it.

    Meanwhile, I can point to several experts who suggest that a handgun doesn’t provide better protection than a rifle, or that a shotgun is more dangerous, to the defenders of the home, than the use of handguns or rifles, or that a rifle is much more user friendly and accurate, even at close distances, than a handgun.

    What do you have?

    Your opinion? Forgive me if I discount that offhand. I’ve had enough of ignorant, unlearned, factually and statistically inaccurate opinions to last a lifetime.

    ReplyReply
  34. johngalt says: 85

    @Davis:

    You see, the simple solution, which I have typed out numerous times, is to outlaw assault weapons,

    Hmmm. Somehow I missed that little nugget of “wisdom”.

    Do you know the percentage of “assault” weapons, compared to all firearms, that are privately owned?

    Do you know the percentage of murders, committed with firearms, in which an “assault” weapon was used?

    Would it surprise you to learn that they are, essentially, the same percent? As in, right around 2.5% or so.

    What does that mean, you ask? It means that if an “assault” weapon wasn’t used, because, say, they are outlawed, that the firearm would be something else. Maybe a handgun. Maybe a hunting rifle. Maybe a shotgun. Whatever else is available.

    “Assault” weapons have nothing to do with the murders being committed. Particularly not in Chicago, where the vast majority are committed with some sort of handgun. The same handgun you claim is “reasonable” self protection. The same handgun that Chicago has outlawed for awhile now.

    “But “assault” weapons are able to kill more people.” Yeah, I’ve heard that claim as well. It is pure bs. The shooter in the Virginia Tech shooting used two handguns, one used 10-round mags and the other 15-round mags. He killed 32 people. Wounded another 17. All with a handgun that holds many fewer rounds than an “assault” rifle does. Against people who were more mobile, in a much wider, more open area, who weren’t trained to hide under desks, immobile, like the Newtown children were.

    Jared Loughner used a handgun, killing several people, wounding many more, in a public setting with police present. A handgun. Could he have done more damage with an “assault” rifle? Sure he could have. If he could have made it close enough to fire the weapon before being engaged by police.

    The two most recent, high profile killings where “assault” weapons were used, Newtown and Aurora, both occurred where guns were banned. “Gun-free” zones. One happened at night, with the shooter entering via a side door. Where his weapons could be somewhat concealed from the public. The other happened at a school. Where he parked his car within 20-30 feet of the door. In mid-morning. Where no one was present other than the people in the school, who couldn’t see him coming.

    What’s my point? That “assault” weapons are hard to conceal. Not as portable, or as concealable as a handgun, for instance. And that the shooters in both of those cases, as well as Virginia Tech, went to “gun-free” zones to commit their crimes. Where the targets were defenseless, more or less. It doesn’t matter which gun was used, genius. If the Newtown shooter only had access to handguns, the carnage would have been similar. If the Aurora shooter only acquired handguns, the death toll would have been much the same. Just like Virginia Tech.

    Quit demonizing the weapon itself as the reason for the murders. The type of weapon had nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, we have 300 million or so firearms in this country that are privately owned. Of those, roughly 2.5% are “assault” rifles, or, roughly 7.5 million of them. On that day, in Newtown, 7,499,999 “assault” weapons, legally owned, by law-abiding citizens, did NOT commit the murders of those 20 children and 6 adults. One of them did, which was illegally acquired, illegally carried to the school, illegally crossed into the “gun-free” zone, and illegally used to murder people. And for that, you wish to suggest that we should now remove those other 7,499,999 firearms from the people who didn’t have anything to do with the crime. Nice use of “logic” there, genius.

    ReplyReply
  35. Davis says: 86

    @johngalt: Has there ever been a spree killing where 20 children were gunned down in cold blood with a handgun? No? Well then I think thats an interesting statistic that you overlooked.

    ReplyReply
  36. Hard Right says: 87

    Dunblane-16 killed
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/index.html
    Stricter gun control than here in the U.S. Shoes how full of it you pseudo-elitest bigots are.
    I see you ran from my post AGAIN davis. No surprise. ESAD you little wannabe fascist.

    ReplyReply
  37. Davis says: 88

    @Hard Right: Because if a tragedy can still occur after guns are restricted, clearly its better to keep the laws where they are, so that not only can little children, but brave firemen can be gunned down by a maniac in the same month.

    ReplyReply
  38. Scott in Oklahoma says: 89

    @Davis: You use as example two cases which would be totally unaffected by ANY new laws or restrictions. Both shooters broke a ton of laws before even staarting their killing spree, do you think they would care if they broke a few more? When you can convince us that new laws will stop people from committing crimes, your arguement might then be valid.

    At your workplace (if you have one), if someone one else, not even in your work area screws up, should all the employees be disciplined? And by disciplined, I mean something like a day without pay, or no safety bonus; something that will get everyone’s attention. Is that the right thing to do?

    ReplyReply
  39. Randy says: 90

    @Davis: @Davis: There have been not one case where a gun accidentally discharged. Every case is where a stupid person pulled the trigger. They are likely the same stupid people who would walk guns across the border since guns are an inanimate object. So, smart one, is it the guns go off accidentally or is it stupid people like you who do stupid things with guns?

    ReplyReply
  40. johngalt says: 91

    @Davis:

    I have accused another on this site, not to distant in the past, of being deliberately obtuse. In your case, I think the obtuseness stems from ignorance and willful blindness.

    I gave you an example, the Virginia Tech shootings, in which handguns, with somewhat limited magazine capacities(as compared to “assault” weapons), were used to gun down 32 people, and wound 17 others, all of which were most definitely quite a bit more mobile than the kids killed in Newtown, and you wish to suggest that since there hasn’t been a mass shooting on the scale of Newtown, killing children, with handguns instead of “assault” weapons, that we all should now realize how dangerous “assault” weapons are?

    I cannot make the argument any clearer that it’s not the specific firearm that is to blame, but the shooters themselves.

    ReplyReply
  41. johngalt says: 92

    @Davis:

    Has there ever been a spree killing where 20 children were gunned down in cold blood with a handgun?

    It seems that there has been, Davis. Newtown, in fact.

    He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/adam-lanza-is-recalled-as-a-rambunctious-kid-with-family-problems/2012/12/14/795ad0fe-4641-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html

    What’s more, the “assault” rifle seems to have been not a rifle, but a semi-auto shotgun.

    Now it turns out that the rifle found in the trunk is not a Bushmaster at all, The police officer is, in gun owner’s jargon, cycling a bolt to clear the weapon. An AR uses a charging handle. Gun experts have said that the weapon shown in the video is some kind of shotgun.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340113

    It seems that the entire narrative of an “assault” weapon being used is inaccurate, at best, and purposely misleading, at worst.

    What’s that you were saying about “assault” weapons again, Davis?

    ReplyReply
  42. Rick Delmonico says: 93

    The beginning of the end of gun ownership came in 1968. Anyone who agrees that the government can take away your gun for any reason (bouncing a check, possession with intent to sell, ect…) Has already agreed that the government has the right to take your guns. They will make a law that says if you do not comply then you will be guilty of a felony and bingo, they have your gun. Our founding fathers worded it the way they did to prevent this from happening. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear. Once they have your guns there is no telling what they will do.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>