Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Kellhound]

Then why are you shooting at them? If you don’t want them dead, for any reason, why in the hell would you shoot at them? Even if the reason is you want to defend life/lives and/or your property, it’s still a reason you want them dead. You may not be happy about it, but there are plenty of things we want in life that we want for reasons other than happiness.

I am at a loss how you cannot grasp the simple concept of the difference between willing and wanting.

[Kellhound]

Willing is the step beyond wanting. I want him dead and am willing to do it.

You have it backwards, but it is pointless to continue to discuss this with your obtuse views.

[Ghostpanther]

The joke is that on my link, it is an own Fox News graphics that say most ppl do not trust them xD.

And again, you can be charged with felony, but the judge and only him will convict you of felony. Until that, you are just charged.

As a bonus : https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...article_inline

Again, you will be charged as committing a felon at the time you did. If you are found not guilty, then you never did commit it in the first place.

And your link does not work.

[Specialka]

Again, you will be charged as committing a felon at the time you did. If you are found not guilty, then you never did commit it in the first place.

And your link does not work.

The link does work on my side though.

Try this one: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

That does mean that at the time of the shooting, he was not a felon since he was not convicted of felony. So most probably, unless proven otherwise, he got his gun legally.

[Mayhem]

You missed the part where the defensive shooter was victim3 and was shot in his car?

Stray bullets - only happen when criminals shoot. Is that your point right now?

[Ghostpanther]

The link does work on my side though.

Try this one: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

That does mean that at the time of the shooting, he was not a felon since he was not convicted of felony. So most probably, unless proven otherwise, he got his gun legally.

I do not care about your link. Very sloppy layout.

Who are you referring to? The shooter in Indiana? If so, I think the odds are, he did not have it legally. All these shootings in Chicago and other large cities lately, those are cities where it is very hard to get a permit to carry a handgun. They are being committed by gangs in drive by shootings mostly.

And there is this.....https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

[Specialka]

I do not care about your link. Very sloppy layout.

Who are you referring to? The shooter in Indiana? If so, I think the odds are, he did not have it legally. All these shootings in Chicago and other large cities lately, those are cities where it is very hard to get a permit to carry a handgun. They are being committed by gangs in drive by shootings mostly.

And there is this.....https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Since it does not seem he was a felon before or has been convicted for anything, he has all his rights before therefore he got his guns legally unless you can prove otherwise.

[Ghostpanther]

Since it does not seem he was a felon before or has been convicted for anything, he has all his rights before therefore he got his guns legally unless you can prove otherwise.

Did you even read the report from the FBI? Do you need help understanding it?

Here..let me help you.....

Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal prisoners reported that they had possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison (figure 1). More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used a firearm by showing, pointing, or discharging it during the offense for which they were imprisoned. Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed, carried, or used it during the offense for which they were imprisoned. An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a license dealer.

The majority of crimes being committed using firearms are done by individuals who did not have their weapons legally. So the odds are against you if you think the criminal more than likely used a legally obtained firearm. At the most. only 32% had their weapons legally.

A gift from a friend? ( 25% ) If the criminal committed a crime using it, I think the odds are pretty good, his friend did not have it legally ether. :P

[Specialka]

Did you even read the report from the FBI? Do you need help understanding it?

Here..let me help you.....

Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal prisoners reported that they had possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison (figure 1). More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used a firearm by showing, pointing, or discharging it during the offense for which they were imprisoned. Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed, carried, or used it during the offense for which they were imprisoned. An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a license dealer.

The majority of crimes being committed using firearms are done by individuals who did not have their weapons legally. So the odds are against you if you think the criminal more than likely used a legally obtained firearm. At the most. only 32% had their weapons legally.

A gift from a friend? ( 25% ) If the criminal committed a crime using it, I think the odds are pretty good, his friend did not have it legally ether. :P

But you have no evidence about this case, have you not ?

[Ghostpanther]

But you have no evidence about this case, have you not ?

No and we may never find out. But the odds are, he did not have it legally. That is my point.

I think we may be pretty much done. Unless you can come up with a new point to consider with gun control in the US, other than your repeated over and over same points.

I think the French people should determine their own future on self defense and the use of what ever tool to help with such, no matter what other countries might do. Same goes for my country.

[Klosenvasten]

I think the French people should determine their own future on self defense and the use of what ever tool to help with such, no matter what other countries might do. Same goes for my country.

There's a recurring theme with unintelligent Americans where you point to superior systems and they say "America is different". America is not different, every major policy that is adopted in the US has much the same effect as it does in other countries.

Essentially what this approach is to defend every moronically stupid feature of American society, even if that results in the regular mass murder of schoolchildren, by making every conceivable sensible policy proposal into an attack on American identity. You can literally do this with anything "Paedophilia is a way of life for Americans", "People have been having sex with cows in Idaho for generations!".

Science, statistics, psychology, these things don't care which country you are talking about.

[Ghostpanther]

There's a recurring theme with unintelligent Americans where you point to superior systems and they say "America is different". America is not different, every major policy that is adopted in the US has much the same effect as it does in other countries.

Essentially what this approach is to defend every moronically stupid feature of American society, even if that results in the regular mass murder of schoolchildren, by making every conceivable sensible policy proposal into an attack on American identity. You can literally do this with anything "Paedophilia is a way of life for Americans", "People have been having sex with cows in Idaho for generations!".

Science, statistics, psychology, these things don't care which country you are talking about.

Lol! Created a burner account so you can bash the US? Ignore is the perfect solution for posters like you.

[Klosenvasten]

Lol! Created a burner account so you can bash the US? Ignore is the perfect solution for posters like you.

Excellent example of what I'm talking about. You are arguing in favor of lax gun control policies which results in the unnecessary deaths of very large numbers of Americans, and you are portraying opposition to that as being somehow anti-american. Like watching your schoolchildren die every few months in the latest round of carnage is American as apple pie.

I'd add: your country is visibly falling apart. It has been a global embarrassment for some time but what is happening now is apocalyptic. That's not down to me: that's down to people like you who voted in an imbecile for president. Even if I did actually hate the US I couldn't possibly have done a better job of helping destroy the country than people like you have somehow managed to do.

[Specialka]

No and we may never find out. But the odds are, he did not have it legally. That is my point.

I think we may be pretty much done. Unless you can come up with a new point to consider with gun control in the US, other than your repeated over and over same points.

I think the French people should determine their own future on self defense and the use of what ever tool to help with such, no matter what other countries might do. Same goes for my country.

ok, so no evidence of anything, except that Hayes was not a felon prior of the shooting. So I know now that you are not better than Foxnews.

[Ghostpanther]

Concerning the case of the couple who stood outside of their home to defend their property in Mo.........https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-...closkey-couple

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson says he is prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors bring criminal charges in the case of a St. Louis couple who brandished firearms at a group of protesters outside their home.

Parson, a Republican, told a St. Louis radio station Friday that he thinks a pardon is “exactly what would happen” if Mark and Patricia McCloskey are hit with charges in the June 28 incident captured on video and seen by millions.

He later added that based on what he knows about the case, “I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail.”

I would do the same thing if I was the Gov. of MO. This is a overreach on the part of the St. Louis Justice dept. Politically motivated. If anything, those who broke thru the gated community and then threatened the couple, should be the ones arrested.

[Zan15]

Did you even read the report from the FBI? Do you need help understanding it?

Here..let me help you.....

Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal prisoners reported that they had possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison (figure 1). More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used a firearm by showing, pointing, or discharging it during the offense for which they were imprisoned. Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed, carried, or used it during the offense for which they were imprisoned. An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a license dealer.

The majority of crimes being committed using firearms are done by individuals who did not have their weapons legally. So the odds are against you if you think the criminal more than likely used a legally obtained firearm. At the most. only 32% had their weapons legally.

A gift from a friend? ( 25% ) If the criminal committed a crime using it, I think the odds are pretty good, his friend did not have it legally ether. :P

What the report tells me is a large portion of these good guys with guns, allow their guns to fall into the hands of criminals. Points to a very large portion of the Legal Gun population as being irresponsible gun owners. Points to huge problems in the system and the laws that govern the system.


But hey what could possibly go wrong when you got what 4 million new gun owners because of irrational fear driving people to buy guys at record pace these days?

When gun related crime rates skyrocket in the next few years 2A supporters will of course wonder what silly libural policy drove this instead of looking back at your little study to see a huge red flag smacking them in the face.

- - - Updated - - -

Concerning the case of the couple who stood outside of their home to defend their property in Mo.........https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-...closkey-couple

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson says he is prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors bring criminal charges in the case of a St. Louis couple who brandished firearms at a group of protesters outside their home.

Parson, a Republican, told a St. Louis radio station Friday that he thinks a pardon is “exactly what would happen” if Mark and Patricia McCloskey are hit with charges in the June 28 incident captured on video and seen by millions.

He later added that based on what he knows about the case, “I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail.”

I would do the same thing if I was the Gov. of MO. This is a overreach on the part of the St. Louis Justice dept. Politically motivated. If anything, those who broke thru the gated community and then threatened the couple, should be the ones arrested.

Why wouldn't you let the judicial system handle it if its so clear cut? Probably wouldn't even clear state courts before it got thrown out right??

You love the constitution and the way the country was structured why not let this process through the courts as it was designed too? Pardon's are usually reserved as an end process not the beginning.

Concerning the case of the couple who stood outside of their home to defend their property in Mo.........

Pointing guns at people walking by your house is defending your property I guess now.

[Svifnymr]

Stray bullets - only happen when criminals shoot. Is that your point right now?

Is that what you're going with? Because that's not what happened at all in this instance, it's not a hypothetical story, it's something that actually happened that we're discussing.

[Mayhem]

Is that what you're going with? Because that's not what happened at all in this instance, it's not a hypothetical story, it's something that actually happened that we're discussing.

It isn't? Was the good samaritan targeted by Hayes?

[Citizen T]

What the report tells me is a large portion of these good guys with guns, allow their guns to fall into the hands of criminals. Points to a very large portion of the Legal Gun population as being irresponsible gun owners. Points to huge problems in the system and the laws that govern the system.


But hey what could possibly go wrong when you got what 4 million new gun owners because of irrational fear driving people to buy guys at record pace these days?

When gun related crime rates skyrocket in the next few years 2A supporters will of course wonder what silly libural policy drove this instead of looking back at your little study to see a huge red flag smacking them in the face.

- - - Updated - - -




Why wouldn't you let the judicial system handle it if its so clear cut? Probably wouldn't even clear state courts before it got thrown out right??

You love the constitution and the way the country was structured why not let this process through the courts as it was designed too? Pardon's are usually reserved as an end process not the beginning.





Pointing guns at people walking by your house is defending your property I guess now.

That's the point. It's apolitical hit job to punish them by costing them tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves knowing that there will never be a conviction.

Pointing Guns at people who are illegally trespassing on private property and threatening you is absolutely appropriate.

[crarelast]

Concerning the case of the couple who stood outside of their home to defend their property in Mo.........

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson says he is prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors bring criminal charges in the case of a St. Louis couple who brandished firearms at a group of protesters outside their home.

Parson, a Republican, told a St. Louis radio station Friday that he thinks a pardon is “exactly what would happen” if Mark and Patricia McCloskey are hit with charges in the June 28 incident captured on video and seen by millions.

He later added that based on what he knows about the case, “I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail.”

I would do the same thing if I was the Gov. of MO. This is a overreach on the part of the St. Louis Justice dept. Politically motivated. If anything, those who broke thru the gated community and then threatened the couple, should be the ones arrested.

People should stop engaging with you. You are a very stupid person, a weird combination of docile passivity and extreme violence. You took the easy route out in life, signed up to the military, and have been pathetically subservient to petty authority your entire life. You have never developed your intellect beyond what was necessary to do other people's bidding. On the internet no one really cares about any one's opinion, but yours is especially wortheless giving you spent your whole life sucking the dick of whatever petty authority you were grovelling to at that specific moment in time.

Trying to argue the details about specific cases with these people just legitimizes them. There isn't an argument here. There's the NRA and inadequate people with massive, dangerous psychological insecurities that need a firearm to feel safe.