We are already doing that...

T

transporter

Well-Known Member
The standard answer on here and from the NRA (which is a major sheepherder of opinion on here) to the problem of gun violence(which those on here don't seem to think exists--except in Chicago of course) is just put more guns on the street. Arm everyone and arm everyone to the teeth...that is the only solution offered. (yet the ignorati don't think the NRA's prime focus is protecting gun manufacturers????)

Well try this on for size...we've been doing that...and it isn't working.

Over the last 30 years gun production has tripled to over 9M units....and, since that isn't enough we also import over 5M guns for sale...

https://apnews.com/card/afs:Card:1813580161/Data-Gallery

According to a 2012 Congressional report,there are more guns in the US than people....and what has the result been...the ignorati claim that more guns is the solution to the problem of too many guns...that is stupid on its face (but completely consistent with the mentality)...but we've been doing that since the early 80s...and the completely predictable result has occurred.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
murderrate-2016.jpg

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state


... And even during the Obama years, Americas Greatest Gun Salesman, the rate is down.

Yep. Completely predictable.
 
Last edited:
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Holy crap Trans... this has nothing to do with putting more guns on the streets, it has to do with the law and LIBERTY. I am not free if the government is telling me, without due process, that I am too dangerous to be armed anywhere; that somehow, when a person puts on a badge and a uniform they suddenly are less dangerous than I am when in the possession of a firearm. When you see me somewhere in a public place (which I can't imagine you'd ever be and survive), are you threatened by me at all. I mean I could, at any moment grab something, walk up to you and kill you with it. Do I suddenly become more dangerous just because I have a different tool in my possession?

People like me don't want more guns on our streets. That's like saying we want more cars on the road. What we do want is to be free to have a car, boat, house, golf clubs, and yes even a gun; even if that results in more of them.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The left needs a villain, and that villain needs a name, or a face.

Previously, with respect to our current discussion, it was just "guns".
And consequently, the GOP and every member. With Obama, it also became conservatives, which he not too subtly called racists as well.
Now it includes gun manufacturers and the NRA. For some inexplicable reason, it doesn't ever actually include the people doing the shooting.

Now when people try to make the point that it's stuff like video games, violent movies and music lyrics, it IS clearly pointed out
that other Western nations have the same video games, violent movies and music lyrics - and they DON'T have school shootings
(or mass shootings, as the Vegas and Orlando shootings weren't schools). They would like to make it about GUNS, and fault anyone
who would protect the ownership of guns as complicit in the deaths.

But there are also nations where people DO have a lot of guns. The Scandinavian nations all have fairly high gun ownership -
but they don't have these incidents. In Switzerland, everyone is required to be armed - and it doesn't happen.
(Conversely, there are nations where gun ownership is not very high - and they have a lot of gun crime - such as Colombia
and Brazil). Even in the United States, where it's often noted that we have a lot of guns - it is not evenly distributed across the
nation. It's not as ubiquitous as say, car ownership. Gun owners have MANY guns - two thirds of Americans don't own ONE.
Of those gun owners - very, very few are ever involved in gun crime.

What we DO have - is the notion among youth that you can go to your school and KILL someone.
I don't know when or how this happened. When I was growing up, the worst you might expect is getting your ass kicked
after school - or on the way home. NO ONE was walking into the classroom and blasting up the room, and for
a time I lived in a house where one room was stacked to the ceiling with guns. Kids even phoned in bomb threats, but
there were never any bombs.

It is not an epidemic of gun violence - despite what you've heard, it's way down. Gun ownership is UP, but gun homicides and gun crimes
are actually down, and have been going down. What IS up is school shootings, a dangerous phenomena that is comparatively recent.

We have TRIED to address this with the left's solution - hinder or disallow guns. It does not work. We now have a whole labyrinth
of anti-gun laws, and it's not stopping kids from shooting at schools. I think it's because no one wants to address the problem.

The problem is US. I don't know precisely - maybe we're pampering our kids, maybe we're not listening to them.
Maybe too many kids are on the sidelines, being bullied, being tormented. What do the kids in these shootings have in common?
Are they ever the most popular kid in school, played in sports, good students? Are they ever involved in programs that
encourage social interaction, cooperation, respect for their classmates? Aren't they almost always messed up kids?

Isn't THAT where we should start?
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Tranny is complaining about how the sales of guns is increasing.

Every time they try to ban them the sales go up.
Obama was the greatest gun salesman ever.
Maybe if Tranny and people like her would just STFU, sales would go down.

And she calls everyone else stupid the ignorati. You are a huge part of the problem you poor pathetic moron.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
transporter said:
and it isn't working.
Click to expand...

You'd have to specify what you mean by "working". As far as I can tell, the progs want 0 deaths by any means, and certainly 0 gun owners. That's flat not going to happen. Like, ever.

Especially since you all want that outcome without giving up any of *your* freedoms. You don't want criminals punished, you don't want profiling, you don't want to prevent likely suspect groups from congregating, you don't want to be inspected, you don't want surveillance, you do want the clearly mentally ill to be normalized, and you want to glorify and laud cold blooded killers; and somehow you think that can coincide with a 0% crime rate.

:crazy:
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
So in 1993, 17,073 firearm related murder victims, for a rate or 6.6 per 100,000.

Then, in 2009, 10, 301, for a rate of 3.4 per 100,000.

So, even though the rate of firearm ownership has skyrocketd, the rate of firarm related murders has plumeted. What am I missing? Not sure how you define "not working", but if the thing I dont like is happening less, how is that "not working". Now, could we reduce the sh^% out of that firearm murder rate? Sure we could. But not by changing a variable that already proven to have either no, or a bebenficial correlation to that rate. If, during an increasing rate of the firearm possesion, tha rate drops, them more ownership should lead to a lower rate, so indeed, arming more law abiding citizens should help. What should also help is to start really punishing those who use firarms in a murder. You start executing folks who kill with a firearm, and pretty soon the pool of people who are willing to point a firearm at another person will drop.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
glhs837 said:
So in 1993, 17,073 firearm related murder victims, for a rate or 6.6 per 100,000.

Then, in 2009, 10, 301, for a rate of 3.4 per 100,000.

So, even though the rate of firearm ownership has skyrocketd, the rate of firarm related murders has plumeted. What am I missing? Not sure how you define "not working", but if the thing I dont like is happening less, how is that "not working". Now, could we reduce the sh^% out of that firearm murder rate? Sure we could. But not by changing a variable that already proven to have either no, or a bebenficial correlation to that rate. If, during an increasing rate of the firearm possesion, tha rate drops, them more ownership should lead to a lower rate, so indeed, arming more law abiding citizens should help. What should also help is to start really punishing those who use firarms in a murder. You start executing folks who kill with a firearm, and pretty soon the pool of people who are willing to point a firearm at another person will drop.
Click to expand...

Repeat offenders were not a problem when Judge Roy Bean sat on the bench.
 
Monello

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
glhs837 said:
What should also help is to start really punishing those who use firarms in a murder. You start executing folks who kill with a firearm, and pretty soon the pool of people who are willing to point a firearm at another person will drop.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Execute anyone using a firearm in any physical crime. Rape, robbery, assault. Use a gun and you die. And no more prison overcrowding. We abort thousands a year so why not off a few thousand ####bags that menace society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top