What Do You Think Should Be Done Regarding Gun Control Issues?

[Kathianne]

It seems the president is sold on better background checks, beyond that it's cloudy. How much do you think the past 3 shootings and all the media/Democrat candidates talk is getting to him?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/08/nra-trump-say-background-checks/


If Donald Trump wanted to shake up the status quo on politics after mass shootings, he succeeded — perhaps more than his allies thought. Over the last two days, Trump has publicly expressed conceptual support for “red flag” laws and more comprehensive background checks, two types of legislation opposed in practice by Trump’s supporters at the NRA. His declaration yesterday of seeing a “great appetite for background checks” prompted a call from Wayne LaPierre in an attempt to head off a legislative disaster for the gun-rights group:


President Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of two mass shootings, prompting a warning from the National Rifle Association and concerns among White House aides, according to lawmakers and administration officials. …


NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after the president expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump’s supporters, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss internal talks. LaPierre also argued against the bill’s merits, the officials said.


The NRA, which opposes the legislation sponsored by Sens. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), declined to comment.

Trump has floated the idea of supporting the Toomey-Manchin effort before, only to dispense with the idea later. But did that flirtation include plans for a Rose Garden signing?




Trump has focused on guns extensively since the shootings, calling lawmakers and surveying aides about what he should do — outreach that began Sunday evening. White House officials say there has been a series of meetings on a response, convened by acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, including a session Tuesday morning. The president has discussed with aides the idea of a Rose Garden bill-signing ceremony for gun-control legislation, a notion that seems premature to many in the West Wing.


Probably not premature enough for the NRA, which will fight any version of Toomey-Manchin as unresponsive. They won’t be far off, either, because at least for the moment it doesn’t appear that background checks were the issue in these shootings. As with Parkland, the problem at least appears to have been a lack of a legal record that would have prevented sales when background checks were performed. The shooters sent up a lot of red flags, but for now it doesn’t appear that law enforcement took enough action to make background checks effective.


The Washington Post provides an example today of how the current system actually may have prevented a mass shooting. Thanks to a lost iPhone, the FBI nabbed a white supremacist for child pornography, but only after he was prevented from buying weaponry to act on “hunting guides” he had published:

According to federal court records, Gilreath sat for an interview with the FBI on Jan. 24, after agents received a tip that someone had been posting online “hunting guides” targeting Jews, Muslims, refugee centers, Bureau of Land Management offices and Montana National Guard facilities, and linked a document labeled as a “Montana Hunting Guide” to the 29-year-old.


Activists in Oregon and Washington state have warned about such guides, which map the addresses of potential targets for white supremacist attacks. They are also a phenomenon that’s well known to the FBI. Investigators have found that the guides often contain information that can be used to “violently target” people with different ethnicities, religious beliefs and political views, the complaint states.


Court records don’t indicate what transpired at the January interview, and Gilreath was not arrested. Four months later, on May 24, he went to a gun store in downtown Boulder and attempted to buy a firearm, handing over his Colorado driver’s license and filling out the mandatory paperwork from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He was rejected. Afterward, the criminal complaint states, he sent a frustrated text message to his father.


“You’ve permanently ruined my ability to buy a gun in Colo. and other states,” he wrote.

It’s not yet clear what specifically prevented the sale, but something certainly did. It’s also not clear why the FBI didn’t pick up Gilreath after his attempt to illegally buy a weapon, something that rarely happens even with the current background-check system. That’s one complaint from the NRA about Toomey-Manchin and similar legislation — that law enforcement doesn’t follow up now on attempts at illegal purchases, an action that also might save a lot of lives.


The NRA may be barking up the wrong tree. Trump’s not looking for reasons to do nothing — he’s looking for ways to answer the demand to do something. As I write in my column for The Week, Trump knows better than most that he didn’t get elected to do nothing:


Voters may at times prioritize the economy, health care, and immigration as higher policy priorities, but the most urgent business of government is public safety. The more that mass shootings occur, the more they become viewed as potential threats to voters in a personal way, no matter how many statistics show that they’re not occurring on a more or less frequent basis. When voters perceive threats to public safety, they expect office holders to do something, not explain various reasons to embrace futility, even if that something may or may not help the problem.


With a tough re-election fight ahead, Trump wisely chose to address the issue head-on and to reframe it around his own policy priorities. After a strange attempt on Twitter to link gun policies to immigration reform, Trump delivered a statement that focused on unity, bipartisanship, and most notably, the need for action. And he made it clear that despite the mutual support between himself and the NRA, Trump is willing to bargain to do something. …


Action is Trump’s default mode as it is, but this has obvious benefits for his 2020 campaign. Pushing for action puts Trump in position to compete with messaging from his potential Democratic opponents; if Trump gets legislation passed or succeeds with executive orders to advance these ideas, he can claim progress on the issue. It won’t preempt criticism entirely, but he won’t get caught embracing futility — a trap into which his party sometimes falls.


Politically, the status quo is not sustainable in the short term. Trump may see expanded background checks as one of the more benign ways to act in relation to gun rights overall. If the NRA disagrees, they’d better come up with some positive and new action that Trump could take that would mitigate against mass shootings. And they’d better do something fast, especially in light of Lindsey Graham’s sharp observation about Trump:


“He seems determined to do something and believes there is space to get something done this time around,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who said he had spoken to Trump “four or five times” since the shootings. “The president has a pretty *common-sense point of view. He’s never been a sports or gun enthusiast. But he is more determined than ever to do something on his watch.”


Do something beats do nothing at the ballot box every time, for better or worse. And Trump knows it.

[STTAB]

It seems the president is sold on better background checks, beyond that it's cloudy. How much do you think the past 3 shootings and all the media/Democrat candidates talk is getting to him?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/08/nra-trump-say-background-checks/

I don't think he was ever that married to the idea that the 2nd was immutable to begin with.

And I think this yet another area where we see that if the dumb ass left would have just dropped all the hatred early on , they could have worked with Trump and actually got some of the things they want in exchange for things like a wall etc etc.

[Noir]

Do what?
Do nothing!
The system is perfect as it is.

[Kathianne]

I don't think he was ever that married to the idea that the 2nd was immutable to begin with.

And I think this yet another area where we see that if the dumb ass left would have just dropped all the hatred early on , they could have worked with Trump and actually got some of the things they want in exchange for things like a wall etc etc.


He has always appealed to compromise with his language, right?

I agree with those who say that if the President said, "Air is good," the left would try to find something wrong with that.

OTOH, The president's idea of trying to 'make a deal' includes first bellowing how he is going to 'win' and the other side is/will cave. It's not helpful or always successful. So far not with Congress, (even within his 'own' party; nor so far with Iran and China.)

[FakeNewsSux]

Do what?
Do nothing!
The system is perfect as it is.

There is no way to tell if the system works or not. The woke leftists do everything in their power to subvert the system. Everytime there are events such as we witnessed last weekend, there are demands that the government pass a slew of new laws to address the "problem". But as soon as these laws are passed, the left ignores them or outright works against them. Take the laws prohibiting guns in possession by a felon for example. This charge is usually the first one dropped when a felon is caught with a gun in commission of a crime. And have you noticed all of the convicted felons each and every Democrat candidate pledges to release from prison once they are sworn in? Virtue signaling demands that they abhor gun violence AND show compassion for those poor folks being punished by the state for engaging in said violence. What do additional gun laws mean for the party that does not believe in the rule of law?

[STTAB]

He has always appealed to compromise with his language, right?

I agree with those who say that if the President said, "Air is good," the left would try to find something wrong with that.

OTOH, The president's idea of trying to 'make a deal' includes first bellowing how he is going to 'win' and the other side is/will cave. It's not helpful or always successful. So far not with Congress, (even within his 'own' party; nor so far with Iran and China.)

I'll agree with you, his way isn't as effective as he and his supporters would have hoped and the reason is stupid voters. You can't threaten someone who knows if they just hold out and demonize you to stupid voters you don't really have any power.

If enough voters stood up and said "enough , you dumb motherfuckers get something done " and forced both parties to compromise on a host of issues, then Trump is the President who wants to do that. He isn't married to ideology . I bet he would give amnesty to most of the people who are currently living peacefully yet illegally in this country if the left would agree to a wall and stricter rules on illegal immigration and fixes to our amnesty laws and such, for example. And what's more, if he did that most of his supporters would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. BUT what they won't be okay with is amnesty first and trust the left on the other issues because that is bullshit .

Look at guns, he issued an EO outlawing bump stocks and the right barely made a peep. They would have screamed bloody murder if Obama had done so. On the other hand, did he get ANY credit from the left? Hell no, he only gets demonized by them.

This couldn't be any clearer, Trump wants to deal, Trump's supporters would live with almost any deal he makes and everyone else including Republicans who don't want any deals just raise holy hell.

It's sickening

[Kathianne]

It should be easier to commit people, but I have to agree in general that these laws are not likely to work:

https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=41513


Borepatch: Red Flag Laws Are Stupid and Useless
Lots of “red flag” talk after the latest shooting panics, but Borepatch would like to remind us that such laws are stupid and useless.


The Parkland shooter was known to be a nutcase, having been reported to the local police some four dozen times (and twice to the FBI). Nobody took action, because the local (and likely national) government agencies thought that doing so would screw up the crime statistical goals that they were trying to achieve. While it’s very early after the event, it appears that lots of people knew that the Dayton shooter was a nutcase. Nobody did anything. The Air Force dishonorably discharged a guy because he was, well, a nutcase – but forgot to update the NCIC database with this information. The nutcase was able to buy a gun and kill a bunch of people in a church.


These are just the examples that come to mind; presumably a thorough analysis my the media or by social scientists would turn up many more examples. Of course, the media and social scientists don’t want to look into this because it would hurt their push for more gun control.


Left unsaid: Red flag laws are not only a Second Amendment violation, but a Fifth Amendment without due process of law. legal expert Alan Dershowitz argues that we don’t have the tools tp make such laws work:


Research shows that any group of people identified as future violent criminals will contain many more who will not be violent (false positives) than they will (true positives). More true positives mean more false ones. Such groups also fail to identify many future violent criminals (false negatives).


We do not currently have the predictive tools needed to increase the number of true positives while reducing false positives. We may one day develop such tools, but how many false positives are we willing to tolerate until then to reduce the number of false negatives? Put another way: How many law-abiding people are we prepared to steal weapons to prevent another mass shooting?


For those who favor strict gun control, the answer may seem obvious. They believe it is worth it for 100 or 1,000 non-violent people to lose their weapons to prevent mass shootings. But those who view gun possession as a fundamental right under the Second Amendment – as the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – frame the problem differently. They ask: Can the government deprive a citizen of a constitutional right based on a prediction?


Red Flag laws run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent. If the government can take your weapons based on a prediction today, what will prevent it from taking your freedom based on a prediction tomorrow?


Indeed, everywhere on Twitter this week, the left have been saying two things:


1. We need to remove guns from the hands of racists, and
2. Everyone who voted for Trump is a racist.

[icansayit]

Begin to enforce ALL OF THE PRESENT GUN LAWS. Making new laws will merely DUPLICATE the Laws we already have...BUT, Congress pretends....do not exist, and therefore.....DO NOT SUPPORT ICE, POLICE, and other LAW ENFORCEMENT....By telling the Public to DISOBEY the laws they do not like.


http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0526416692006951b42c6d0f2313921a879f57-v5-wm.jpg?v=28


https://pics.me.me/we-need-more-gun-laws-because-we-dont-have-the-8741349.png

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfV2URGY-DiB9kJg4HUtJ83w6xb9FF-d1vnjDvqARGAjs9cayuGA

[Kathianne]

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/08/08/wayne-lapierre-hints-nra-will-oppose-gun-control-proposals-consideration/


Wayne LaPierre Hints: The NRA Will Oppose Any Of The Gun-Control Proposals Under Consideration
ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 6:01 pm on August 8, 2019


We already basically knew this but LaPierre blasted out an “important statement” late this afternoon confirming — in vague terms — that the NRA is a “no” on pretty much anything that’s on the table.




Including the Trump-favored Lindsey Graham proposal for a “red-flag law,” though?




Unclear. I think this is deliberately vague so that the NRA can save face later if Trump decides to plow ahead with that bill anyway. “Trump’s not ‘defying’ us because we never specifically opposed a red-flag law!” The statement:



“I’m not inclined to discuss private conversations with President Trump or other key leaders on this issue,” says Wayne LaPierre, CEO and EVP of the National Rifle Association. “But I can confirm that the NRA opposes any legislation that unfairly infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. The inconvenient truth is this: the proposals being discussed by many would not have prevented the horrific tragedies in El Paso and Dayton. Worse, they would make millions of law abiding Americans less safe and less able to defend themselves and their loved ones.”




LaPierre continued, “The NRA will work in good faith to pursue real solutions to the epidemic of violence in America. But many proposals are nothing more than ‘soundbite solutions’ – which fail to address the root of the problem, confront criminal behavior, or make our communities safer.”


A red-flag law might have prevented the Dayton shooting, at least. And as of last year, the NRA was surprisingly receptive to red-flag laws. Wait, scratch that. As of last year, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, was surprisingly receptive to red-flag laws. As of about six weeks ago Cox is gone, forced out after allegedly leading a palace coup against LaPierre. LaPierre’s strong statement of opposition this afternoon could be read as an indirect rebuke to Cox. “Unlike the squishy insubordinates who tried to oust me,” LaPierre is saying to NRA members, “I’ll be a diehard in opposing new gun regulations.”


Dana Loesch published a piece a few days ago arguing that red-flag laws are a bad idea for reasons of basic due process, replacing “innocent until proven guilty” with “somewhat guilty until proven innocent.” Point taken, counters David French, but the law already allows for certain restraints to be placed on people who’ve demonstrated that they’re capable of behaving dangerously *provided* that they have a chance in court to answer those charges.


Domestic violence orders of protection, restraining orders, and involuntary civil commitment (for people facing an acute mental health crisis) are commonly based on actions or statements that indicate an intent to inflict future harm. While many people who express suicidal or homicidal thoughts don’t kill themselves or others, countless Americans are grateful for processes that require a person to seek mental health treatments, bar them from access to homes or workplaces, or prevent them from maintaining personal contact with threatened individuals…


A good red-flag law is going to require that the petitioner come forward with admissible evidence, require the petitioner to carry a burden of proof, and provide advance notice of the hearing to provide the respondent with an opportunity to contest the claims against him. In emergency situations — where advance notice isn’t possible or prudent — the law should provide the owner with a prompt opportunity to contest the claims against him. And, at all times, the petitioners (those seeking the seizure order) must bear the burden of proof, and respondents should be granted the right of appeal.


There tend to be lots of red flags with mass shooters before they go off too, he noted in a subsequent post. It’d be fascinating to see what red-state senators would do in a true clash of titans involving Trump backing red-flag laws on the one hand and LaPierre and the gun lobby opposing them on the other. Where do self-interested GOP senators fall on that test of loyalty? The question’s probably academic since Trump almost always reverts to doing what his base wants after some early initial flirtation with a centrist gesture. He’s calculated, not unreasonably, that opinion on him is so firm and divided that the key to winning next fall is to mobilize his fans, not try to persuade centrist voters who are probably unpersuadable. He’ll stay on the NRA’s good side — probably.


But you never know with him. There’s a small but nonzero chance before this is over that he ends up trolling LaPierre on Twitter over that mansion he wanted the NRA to buy for him.


The surreal thing about the gun debate at this moment is that it’s a fait accompli that the left will get its way on *some* basic new regulations eventually. The timetable is unclear: It might happen as early as 2021 or take until 2025 or possibly even 2029. But odds are high that Democrats will regain total control of government over the next decade, and when they do it’s a cinch that universal background checks will pass. An assault-weapons ban is not quite as certain, but also very likely. Expanding background checks is so fantastically popular in polling, in fact, that Schumer might tee it up as the first thing the new Democratic Senate decides to do, knowing and expecting that the Republican minority will filibuster. And when they do, that’ll be his cue to nuke the legislative filibuster once and for all, clearing the way for Democrats to pass the rest of their agenda with a simple majority vote. UBC is a superb issue for that precisely because so many voters on both sides support it. “We cannot let 90 percent of Americans be held hostage by 41 Republican senators,” Schumer would say, “especially on a matter of life and death like gun safety.” And that would buy him a lot of credit with Americans who would otherwise be nervous to see the filibuster go. It’s a matter of when, not if.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

OK... yes... "red flag laws" are a perfect example of the "slippery slope." They could and most certainly would be used as a tool to further disarm and undermine the 2nd amendment.

Where do I stand? Well, I'd say that if you've been arrested and convicted of assault, which is a felony, then you should lose your 2nd amendment rights. Oh wait, you ALREADY DO.

Then there's the mental illness issue, that's where the waters get murky. What exactly are the parameters for that? Fighting. Hell I've been in lots of fights. Should I not be allowed to own a firearm? Does violence alone constitute a reason to take someone's 2nd amendment rights away? What if you were acting in self defense and beat the shit otta someone? It's not something that's black or white that can be easily quantified. But obviously, if you're a raging lunatic, no guns, period. You're a drooling, raging, lunatic, that's easy, but where IS the line? There's where the "red flag laws" could and most CERTAINLY would be used as a tool to further disarming the public.

Give the democrats a law that disarms the raging, drooling, clinically diagnosed lunatics and call it a day.

[Elessar]

Where the laws and restrictions get muddied is when there is no documented adjudication.

My thought is simple. If convicted of a violent crime, face restriction legally from buying, owning,
or possessing a firearm. Or even a bow or crossbow. LEGALLY is the key word.

If one is found to be mentally unstable is another muddy path. A Doctor / patient contract restricts,
by law, release of information from a Psychologist or Psychiatrist. That needs to be reviewed.

My Ex-wife became bat-shit crazy. 3 doctors were going to testify against her. She had no business
owning a .38 caliber wheel gun. I took it away from her twice and so did her step-father.

[Kathianne]

Where the laws and restrictions get muddied is when there is no documented adjudication.

My thought is simple. If convicted of a violent crime, face restriction legally from buying, owning,
or possessing a firearm. Or even a bow or crossbow. LEGALLY is the key word.

If one is found to be mentally unstable is another muddy path. A Doctor / patient contract restricts,
by law, release of information from a Psychologist or Psychiatrist. That needs to be reviewed.

My Ex-wife became bat-shit crazy. 3 doctors were going to testify against her. She had no business
owning a .38 caliber wheel gun. I took it away from her twice and so did her step-father.

Actually psychiatrists are required by law to report any patient they believe may be an immediate danger to themselves or others. Psychologists I'm uncertain about.

The problem with the 'red flag' laws from what I've been reading is that: 1. Parents, neighbors, siblings, teachers, etc., all can say, 'red flag.' Then there has to be some sort of due process before a judge.

Kind of ripe for the problems some divorcing couples have with abuse accusations.

2. Assuming someone really thinks there's a 'problem' you almost have to err on the side of caution. If nothing is done and something happens? So, everyone that has a temper-gets into lots of fights-could end up with these red flags.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I think Trump is going along with this red flag stuff just to appease the left. He should tread carefully though, because he could very easily alienate one hellova a lot of his base if gets too crazy with it.

He's railed at his rallies every time about... "protect the second amendment," well, he better be careful what he's doing. He doesn't want to have a... "read my lips, no new taxes" moment.

[Kathianne]

I think Trump is going along with this red flag stuff just to appease the left. He should tread carefully though, because he could very easily alienate one hellova a lot of his base if gets too crazy with it.

He's railed at his rallies every time about... "protect the second amendment," well, he better be careful what he's doing. He doesn't want to have a... "read my lips, no new taxes" moment.

I don't think it's possible.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't think it's possible.
Mmmm... IDK... when it comes to the 2nd amendment... you can make a lot of people mad real quick if you do something that appears to "infringe" on it.

[Kathianne]

Mmmm... IDK... when it comes to the 2nd amendment... you can make a lot of people mad real quick if you do something that appears to "infringe" on it.

It seems the NRA made their feelings clear, I'm guessing he'll stop short.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It seems the NRA made their feelings clear, I'm guessing he'll stop short.
I've heard that lots of people are leaving the NRA for... https://gunowners.org/

I guess many are unhappy with the recent internal strife at the NRA, and presumed, if not apparent, wavering support for the 2nd Amendment.

[SassyLady]

There needs to be more info sharing between agencies so backgrounds checks are more effective.

"Red flag" would be too easily abused.


Many women, like myself, carry guns for self-defense from thugs and criminals. But provisions in the Disarm Women Act would allow for any “dating partner or former dating partner” to strip a gun owning woman of her Constitutional rights with just a phone call to a judge.
A woman’s guns are confiscated with no warning and no due process. This is just like the “red flag” laws that we have been battling across the country.
In fact, we’ve had a lot of experience with these “quickie” proceedings. And we know that they are often used by an angry ex to exact revenge on a former partner.
Consider in California, a cheating husband used his state’s red flag law to confiscate his wife’s Glock.

https://gunowners.org/alert52819/

[Noir]

There is no way to tell if the system works or not.

If you’re having mass shootings as regularly as America is, I think that’s a ‘way to tell’.

[STTAB]

If you’re having mass shootings as regularly as America is, I think that’s a ‘way to tell’.

We don't regularly have mass shootings Noir.

An American is statistically far more likely to die in a household accident than by a mass shooter.

[Noir]

We don't regularly have mass shootings Noir.

How many have there been so far this year?

[Kathianne]

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/09/trump-full-speed-ahead-meaningful-background-checks/


Trump: Full Speed Ahead On “Meaningful Background Checks”
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 10:01 am on August 9, 2019


Will Donald Trump put together a gun-control package that eluded Barack Obama? After two mass shootings this weekend, Trump has ignored reluctant Republicans and a worried NRA to push for expanded background checks and “red flag” laws to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and dangerous. Wayne LaPierre tried to slow Trump down yesterday (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/08/08/wayne-lapierre-hints-nra-will-oppose-gun-control-proposals-consideration/), but the president declared full speed ahead this morning on Twitter:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
· 2h
Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks. I have also been speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected. Guns should not be placed in the hands of.....


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
....mentally ill or deranged people. I am the biggest Second Amendment person there is, but we all must work together for the good and safety of our Country. Common sense things can be done that are good for everyone!
5:03 AM - Aug 9, 2019 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1159797315680555014)

[Elessar]

How many have there been so far this year?

What you fail to comprehend is that it is not the object, it is the person with the object
being it a firearm, knife, or automobile.

I look around my house and there are dozens of objects that can be used as a weapon,
without even considering my rifle, shotgun or bow.

It takes a human to activate any of these, period. It boils down to intent on the part of a human.

I am an NRA member, but I agree with extensive background checks to LEGALLY obtain a firearm.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

IDK... I haven't heard mention of it and I hope I don't, and that's the legal sale of a firearm between two citizens. We can still go to a gun show here in WI and legally buy and sell guns without needing an FFL or a background check. I'd hate to see that disappear. When the government knows where every single gun is, that's when we'll get the big push to start collecting them.

[STTAB]

How many have there been so far this year?



If you generously believe every claim of mass shooter from the left , 295 people have been killed in the US by mass shooters so far this year.

Out of 330M people.

Chicago ALONE has had more people murdered by single shooting incidents than this.

Liberals don't care about shooting victims, they never have. They care about "can this issue get us power?"

[High_Plains_Drifter]

MURDER is ALREADY ILLEGAL, so according to this argument that MORE laws will PREVENT more killing, if laws prevented killing, then MURDER already being illegal should STOP ALL KILLINGS.

That's the logic.

[Drummond]

Seems to me that this is a remarkably simple situation ... its solution no less simple.

The right to bear arms .. the freedom to own a gun ... SURELY confers an automatic presumption that the would-be owner is fit to own one ?

Therefore, tests to ensure that fitness are no less than logical and reasonable !

As has been demonstrated time and again, so very tragically, unfit persons abuse their so-called 'right' to gun ownership by violating maybe THE most fundamental human right there is ... the right to live ! Such unfit persons (aka 'psychos') can't surely enjoy one 'right', if they use it to deny an even more fundamental human right that their victims have their right to enjoy ?

[STTAB]

Seems to me that this is a remarkably simple situation ... its solution no less simple.

The right to bear arms .. the freedom to own a gun ... SURELY confers an automatic presumption that the would-be owner is fit to own one ?

Therefore, tests to ensure that fitness are no less than logical and reasonable !

As has been demonstrated time and again, so very tragically, unfit persons abuse their so-called 'right' to gun ownership by violating maybe THE most fundamental human right there is ... the right to live ! Such unfit persons (aka 'psychos') can't surely enjoy one 'right', if they use it to deny an even more fundamental human right that their victims have their right to enjoy ?

The issue shows the abject hypocrisy on both sides.

Let's compare owning a gun to voting.

Both are RIGHTS in this country, guaranteed in COTUS.

But reasonable persons understand that guaranteed rights can in exigent circumstances be taken away. Now, knowing this , we must then admit that the only way to know if those circumstances exist is to make sure we're both allowing those who are eligible to exercise their rights and and to make sure that those we don't want doing so , aren't.

On guns, the left want background checks and such and the right oppose them, but on voting the left opposes any form of voter ID control while the right wants it.

Both sides are stupid, just logically you can't be for background checks to buy a gun but against voter ID, or the other way around.

[CSM]

Seems to me that this is a remarkably simple situation ... its solution no less simple.

The right to bear arms .. the freedom to own a gun ... SURELY confers an automatic presumption that the would-be owner is fit to own one ?

Therefore, tests to ensure that fitness are no less than logical and reasonable !

As has been demonstrated time and again, so very tragically, unfit persons abuse their so-called 'right' to gun ownership by violating maybe THE most fundamental human right there is ... the right to live ! Such unfit persons (aka 'psychos') can't surely enjoy one 'right', if they use it to deny an even more fundamental human right that their victims have their right to enjoy ?

And there's the rub. Who determines the fitness of the would be owner? Is the metric based on mental fitness, political affiliation, religious belief, economic status (in medieval times, only the nobility were allowed to bear arms), place of residence or some other personal status? As has been stated, there are many laws already on the books that supposedly ensure "the right to live" (aka, outlawing murder). There are a plethora of laws in place already that supposedly ensure that only the "right people" own guns. I, for one, do not trust ANY government to develop such a test. If we go to the extreme and declare that no human being has the right to bear arms of any kind (totally unenforceable methinks), that would be as ridiculous that every human be issued arms at birth.

Clearly, it is a complex issue. Regulating our "inalienable rights" sounds easy. It is not.

[FakeNewsSux]

If you’re having mass shootings as regularly as America is, I think that’s a ‘way to tell’.

The whole program is good but start listening at the 44 minute mark for specific material:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-the-dan-odonnell-show-27550539/episode/myths-and-truths-about-mass-shootings-47475481/

[hjmick]

First and foremost, make the fuck sure that everyone is discussing the same thing. It seems as though those wanting to ban certain firearms don't know the damn difference between automatic and semi-automatic...

[hjmick]

How many have there been so far this year?


That depends on how you define a "mass shooting".

[hjmick]

Do what?
Do nothing!
The system is perfect as it is.


If you're going to step in and attempt to discuss something you know nothing about, at least try to grow the hell up.

[icansayit]

If you’re having mass shootings as regularly as America is, I think that’s a ‘way to tell’.


How easily you (in another nation) can speak of so-called Mass Shootings in America....But, you easily, and intentionally forget to mention all of the KILLING that takes place, all over Europe, and on the streets of major cities like Paris.
I guess the WAY human beings are killed....does not qualify to your way of thinking? Bombings, Stabbings, Trucks targeting people on the streets, and bridges.
Noir. You show your hypocrisy in all of this by TELLING US TO CLEAN OUR BACKYARD....WHILE YOUR'S IS WORSE LOOKING???

https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/1157976-Larry-Winget-Quote-Clean-up-your-own-backyard-Change-by-example.jpg

[Drummond]

How easily you (in another nation) can speak of so-called Mass Shootings in America....But, you easily, and intentionally forget to mention all of the KILLING that takes place, all over Europe, and on the streets of major cities like Paris.
I guess the WAY human beings are killed....does not qualify to your way of thinking? Bombings, Stabbings, Trucks targeting people on the streets, and bridges.
Noir. You show your hypocrisy in all of this by TELLING US TO CLEAN OUR BACKYARD....WHILE YOUR'S IS WORSE LOOKING???

https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/1157976-Larry-Winget-Quote-Clean-up-your-own-backyard-Change-by-example.jpg

Yes - well said.

The media, over here, has a lot to answer for when it comes to priming people like Noir. There's pretty much universal agreement among all those reporting on the whole so-called American 'gun culture' that America's fondness for guns, and lack of control in making them available (compared with us, anyway) makes our culture a 'superior' one. People just can't understand the freedom to own guns, and every single time another 'mass shooting' gets reported, there's yet further proof, in THEIR eyes, of how wrong, even 'backward', it is to have a society permitting their ownership.

But ... AS YOU SAY ... we've absolutely no cause for smugness, just because we have those controls. People pull triggers .. they don't pull themselves. Every murder that happens is the fault of the murderer, not the weapon used. We have escalating knife crime (something Noir is very happy to somehow 'overlook' .. as well he might, since a certain Left-wing Trump hater of a London Mayor has allowed it to escalate on HIS turf).

Sadiq Khan is his name ... our first Muslim London mayor. He always finds time to pour vitriol in Trump's direction ... all the while remaining far more passive about murders on his own doorstep.

Nice to know he's got (or so he THINKS) his 'priorities properly sorted out' .....

I thoroughly agree with Trump's critical tweets aimed at London's Mayor. He richly deserves them.

[Elessar]

Do what?
Do nothing!
The system is perfect as it is.


If you’re having mass shootings as regularly as America is, I think that’s a ‘way to tell’.


How many have there been so far this year?


If you're going to step in and attempt to discuss something you know nothing about, at least try to grow the hell up.

You've been told off, to back off, grow up and learn. You inject your whining liberal
opinion on everything and refuse to listen to some older than wiser than you.

hjmick...Thanks!

[Noir]

If you generously believe every claim of mass shooter from the left , 295 people have been killed in the US by mass shooters so far this year.

Out of 330M people.

Chicago ALONE has had more people murdered by single shooting incidents than this.

Liberals don't care about shooting victims, they never have. They care about "can this issue get us power?"

Okay, 295 people in mass shootings, plus many more in individual shootings, out of 350 million population.

How many have died over the same time in mass shootings out of Europe’s ~740million ‘good citizens are unable to protect themselves’ population?

[STTAB]

Okay, 295 people in mass shootings, plus many more in individual shootings, out of 350 million population.

How many have died over the same time in mass shootings out of Europe’s ~740million ‘good citizens are unable to protect themselves’ population?

Here is the numbers Noir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now, take Baltimore, Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago and let's say New Orleans out of the US and drop them as is into Europe and see what the numbers look like.

Without those 5 or 6 mostly black cities the overall US numbers drop to almost nothing. On par with the numbers Europe has now , and that is without taking away anyone's guns.

Black on black crime skews the numbers way out of what otherwise would be reality, and pretending like that isn't true is nothing more than a sign that someone doesn't REALLY want to discuss issues.

[Kathianne]

Here is the numbers Noir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now, take Baltimore, Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago and let's say New Orleans out of the US and drop them as is into Europe and see what the numbers look like.

Without those 5 or 6 mostly black cities the overall US numbers drop to almost nothing. On par with the numbers Europe has now , and that is without taking away anyone's guns.

Black on black crime skews the numbers way out of what otherwise would be reality, and pretending like that isn't true is nothing more than a sign that someone doesn't REALLY want to discuss issues.


I don't know about the other cities, but Chicago isn't close to mostly black. Maybe 30%.

[STTAB]

I don't know about the other cities, but Chicago isn't close to mostly black. Maybe 30%.

For obvious reasons , however, you didn't try to dispute that black on black crime in major cities skews the US figures

[Kathianne]

For obvious reasons , however, you didn't try to dispute that black on black crime in major cities skews the US figures
Why would I? That is true.

[CSM]

The only way this issue would be resolved (IMO) is if the Congress would amend the Constitution using the process as outlined including ratification of said amendment by the States. Good luck with that. Our elected representatives dance around that course of action, relying rather on more gun laws which make criminals of law abiding citizens and are largely unenforceable anyway.

[Elessar]

By legally armed civilians:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/18/armed-civilian-kills-gunman-stops-shooting-spree-at-tumwater-wash-walmart/?noredirect=on

What say you now, pacifist Noir?

[Noir]

By legally armed civilians:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/18/armed-civilian-kills-gunman-stops-shooting-spree-at-tumwater-wash-walmart/?noredirect=on

What say you now, pacifist Noir?

Great story - let me find you the one about the man in the U.K. who couldn’t be stopped when he went on a bloody-gun rampage because our civs didn’t have guns -...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Great story - let me find you the one about the man in the U.K. who couldn’t be stopped when he went on a bloody-gun rampage because our civs didn’t have guns -...
You don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, yet you persist... typical arrogant, self righteous, know it all, punk leftist.

[Drummond]

Great story - let me find you the one about the man in the U.K. who couldn’t be stopped when he went on a bloody-gun rampage because our civs didn’t have guns -...

... And, Noir, let me tell YOU about knife crime, especially in London. What great 'answer' to it does Sadiq Khan have (1st Muslim London Mayor, backed by Labour) .. ?

He just tells us that it may take TEN YEARS to bring under control.

Do people have guns to fend off knife-toting thugs with ? NO. They're not allowed them, except under very exceptional circumstances (living in a high knife crime area doesn't count). Trouble is, too, that criminals don't obey laws if they don't feel like it ... so if anyone (except one of those few policemen allowed to) is going to have and use one, it'll be a criminal.

Deterrence ? Self defence ? Do draconian gun laws allow any such thing ??

Where was the deterrence factor, for example, when a machete wielding maniac BEHEADED his victim, in a neighbourhood I once lived just minutes' walk away from ... ?

-- This one, in fact .... >>

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11075380/Woman-beheaded-in-north-London-garden.html


An 82-year-old woman was beheaded in a north London suburban garden by a man with a machete.

Palmira Silva, a widow and grandmother described as “such a sweet lady” by one neighbour, was killed outside her home in Edmonton in a random but frenzied assault by a 25-year-old.

Witnesses said they saw the man, wielding a foot-long blade, attack a passing vehicle and a cat before roaming back gardens looking for a victim.

Police believe he also tried to attack two people at another home in the street, but they were able to escape without injury.

The man was arrested after armed officers, who had distracted him to prevent further attacks, cornered him in a house and brought him down with a Taser stun gun. Some officers were injured.

Mrs Silva, who was of Italian descent, was pronounced dead at the scene.

One line of inquiry for detectives is understood to be that the man was inspired by recent footage of terrorists beheading two American journalists in Syria.

A neighbourhood not allowed to have guns is one that cannot fend off or stop a deranged machete thug easily !! People have to wait for the police to arrive. By then ... how many people could he have killed ?

But maybe you're OK with that. Here, we're talking about one woman who was the prey of a crazed murderer. For the sake of saving her life .. better that she loses it, eh, rather than allow people a self defence capablity that could've SAVED her.

Yes ? Is that how you see this, @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) ?

There's a real world out there. It has to be met in realistic terms. To SAVE lives.

Do you now, finally, understand that ?? OR, are you so wedded to political imperatives dictated to you that you can never stray so much as a millimetre away from them, in case REAL WORLD problems threaten to intrude upon your 'worldview' .. ?

[Noir]

... And, Noir, let me tell YOU about knife crime

Would you rather the people committing knife crimes had access to guns instead?

Why aren’t all these people committing knife crimes committing gun crimes?

[STTAB]

Would you rather the people committing knife crimes had access to guns instead?

Why aren’t all these people committing knife crimes committing gun crimes?

why would you rather scream "gun control" rather than actually fix the fucking problem? The person who is dead doesn't care whether they were killed by a knife or a gun

[Noir]

why would you rather scream "gun control" rather than actually fix the fucking problem? The person who is dead doesn't care whether they were killed by a knife or a gun

But the people who are alive who were able to not be within Arms reach of a murderer are alive.

[STTAB]

But the people who are alive who were able to not be within Arms reach of a murderer are alive.

Which means you really do not care about those who were killed. You only care about screeching that too many were killed because GUN.

I care about preventing the unnecessary loss of life. Whether it's one life or ten.

[Kathianne]

So it begins?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/14/go-nyt-politico-report-trump-working-dems-major-gun-control-package/



Here We Go: NYT, Politico Report Trump Working With Dems On Gun-Control Package
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 10:01 am on August 14, 2019

What can you do when populists start, er, populisting? Just hope that they don’t list too far to the Left. Both the New York Times and Politico report overnight that Donald Trump wants to put together a major gun bill in the wake of two mass shootings this month, although just how major remains to be seen:




Mr. Trump on Sunday telephoned Senator Christopher S. Murphy, a Democrat who has been one of the leading voices in Congress for gun control, an indication that the president is interested in pursuing legislation. Earlier in the week, Mr. Murphy had contacted the White House to indicate that he was willing to work with Mr. Trump on the issue, which prompted the call.


The conversation was positive, with Mr. Trump indicating that he was serious about persuading Republicans to act, according to officials familiar with their discussion. And the two agreed to set up a staff-level dialogue this week between their offices and those of Senators Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, who are working feverishly to revive the background check legislation they wrote after the Sandy Hook massacre.


The N.R.A., which opposes gun registration in any form, has for years fought against background check bills, arguing that they “don’t stop criminals from getting firearms” and that some proposals “would deprive individuals of due process of law.” If such a bill passed and was signed by Mr. Trump into law, it would be the first significant federal gun safety law in a quarter-century.


Looks like last week’s salute to “meaningful Background Checks” wasn’t a one-off rhetorical device. Trump didn’t call Murphy just to chew the fat or to pose in public; Trump apparently wants to force Republicans to back the Toomey-Manchin bill that the NRA successfully stalled a few years ago. Another sign that Trump wants action, Politico notes, is the point man Trump has assigned to the effort:


Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Their staffers have been meeting with Joe Grogan’s Domestic Policy Council and W.H. leg affairs director Eric Ueland. They’ve discussed where Manchin-Toomey legislation stands and what changes have been made. Each senator has also spoken with President DONALD TRUMP privately. The WHITE HOUSE has also had in-person contact with aides to Rep. DOUG COLLINS (R-Ga.), the top Republican on Judiciary.


MULTIPLE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE TALKS say Ueland is taking control of the situation — a hopeful sign if you’re looking for progress. We spoke to a number of people on the Hill and in the White House who were hoping this effort is headquartered in the legislative affairs shop, and not captained by the gaggle of other White House officials who try to insert themselves into legislative issues. Ueland and his team have the bandwidth and connections to navigate the Hill.


This could be a strategy of containment by Trump. If takes proactive steps to shift the focus onto expanded background checks, it might take some pressure off of other non-responsive demands such as a new assault-weapons ban or other measures that would infringe more on gun rights. To some extent it’s already working, and Trump knows that voters support the idea of background check changes more than any other measure in dealing with mass shooting incidents. If he stays ahead of that curve, Trump can lead it — or so the theory goes.


On the merits, expanded background checks aren’t terribly responsive either. The issues in most of these shootings involve previous failures by law enforcement to take action that would create the red flags necessary to stop a firearms sale. A less passive form of policing on lower-level incidents might improve matters greatly for the current system of background checks. Another potential improvement would be to actually prosecute those who attempt to buy firearms illegally and get caught by the existing system, a common-sense follow-up on failed background checks which almost never happens.


For those reasons and others, the NRA might not appreciate the nuance of Trump’s strategy. They offered Trump unprecedented support in 2016 on the assumption that he couldn’t get bullied into retreat. Trump is nothing if not transactional, however, as most populists tend to be. What matters to a populist is the current vox populi, not ideological trenches. If the current vox populi says “background checks,” then that’s where Trump will go, especially with all of the incentives of an election cycle now in play. Let’s just hope that the vox populi doesn’t start saying “massive confiscation.”


At this point, gun rights advocates had better prepare themselves for the eventual Rose Garden ceremony, and hope to shape it to keep damage to a minimum.


Addendum: It’s worth noting in the NYT article how Democrats are characterizing their August recess town halls. Voters want action on mass shootings. How many of them are demanding action on impeachment? Thus far, it seems as though voters don’t really care about that, and it will be interesting to see what this cooperative effort does to the impeachment process when House Democrats return.

[STTAB]

So it begins?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/14/go-nyt-politico-report-trump-working-dems-major-gun-control-package/

Off topic, but I'm trying to remember a time that Obama called Republican leaders to discuss bipartisan agreement on ANY subject. Trump does it all the time, but he's the fucking authoritarian says liberals.

[Kathianne]

Off topic, but I'm trying to remember a time that Obama called Republican leaders to discuss bipartisan agreement on ANY subject. Trump does it all the time, but he's the fucking authoritarian says liberals.

True. Now about the topic at hand?

[Noir]

Which means you really do not care about those who were killed. You only care about screeching that too many were killed because GUN.

I care about preventing the unnecessary loss of life. Whether it's one life or ten.

No, it is just an acceptance that in most cases when someone does decide they are going to kill its probable that they will be able to attack at least one person.

However number of people they can attack in a given time is greatly varies based on their ownership of a gun or not.

[STTAB]

True. Now about the topic at hand?

As I've stated. I have little faith that our government will do ANYTHING that actually alleviates the issue at all.

There is a reason young white men are choosing to commi9t mass murder, probably related to the reason why so many young white men are committing suicide. Unless we address that no gun laws will make a difference.

[Kathianne]

As I've stated. I have little faith that our government will do ANYTHING that actually alleviates the issue at all.

There is a reason young white men are choosing to commi9t mass murder, probably related to the reason why so many young white men are committing suicide. Unless we address that no gun laws will make a difference.

Would be easier to see consistency if you even questioned the harm that might result in handing over more powers, especially when it effectually only pertains to the law abiding.

[STTAB]

Would be easier to see consistency if you even questioned the harm that might result in handing over more powers, especially when it effectually only pertains to the law abiding.

On the list of things politicians care about I would judge that consistency has to be in the bottom 5.

[Kathianne]

On the list of things politicians care about I would judge that consistency has to be in the bottom 5.
So now you are posting as a politician? Expound on that, please.

[STTAB]

So now you are posting as a politician? Expound on that, please.

Wait, you're accusing ME of being inconsistent? LOL This I have to hear.

[Kathianne]

Wait, you're accusing ME of being inconsistent? LOL This I have to hear.

Gun restrictions, red flag, deep dive background...

[STTAB]

Gun restrictions, red flag, deep dive background...

What are you talking about? I have CONSISTENTLY said that I am against those things primarily because none of them would even achieve the desired result.

In fact I pointedly said the only concession I would make if I were Trump is I would push for a federal law making it illegal to open carry a long rifle in any city or town. Bypass the whole question of "is some asshole who's carrying an AR15 into Wal Mart doing so to do something illegal, or is he just being an asshole and so that isn't probable cause to stop him" question right in its tracks.

[Kathianne]

What are you talking about? I have CONSISTENTLY said that I am against those things primarily because none of them would even achieve the desired result.

In fact I pointedly said the only concession I would make if I were Trump is I would push for a federal law making it illegal to open carry a long rifle in any city or town. Bypass the whole question of "is some asshole who's carrying an AR15 into Wal Mart doing so to do something illegal, or is he just being an asshole and so that isn't probable cause to stop him" question right in its tracks.

Then I apologize, all those posts from yesterday on the topic must be wrong. Check to see if your account was hacked.

[STTAB]

Then I apologize, all those posts from yesterday on the topic must be wrong. Check to see if your account was hacked.

You may need a new eyeglass prescription because that is exactly what I have posted.

[Drummond]

Would you rather the people committing knife crimes had access to guns instead?

Why aren’t all these people committing knife crimes committing gun crimes?

The fact you're overlooking is that gun ownership, as a physical fact, isn't impossible in the UK. All you need to own one, is:

1. A disregard for the law (yes, criminals qualify !!).

2. A supplier willing to break the law and supply a gun.

Are you telling me that this never happens ? That it cannot happen ?

From the Guardian, Noir (so you know 'it must be true' (!!!) ....):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/27/police-struggle-to-stop-flood-of-firearms-into-uk


Guns and drugs seized by the National Crime Agency in a cross-Channel investigation. Photograph: NCA/PAPolice and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019.

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.

-- Point made ??

As for the Edmonton-based example I cited, of a woman BEHEADED ... the maniac responsible wasn't stopped from doing that. Gun ownership, either her own gun or one that a neighbour or family member could've used, could and would have stopped the attack. The attack wasn't stopped, that lady lost her life, BECAUSE the means to stop her attacker wasn't available.

Noir, the truth here is that you're trying to play a numbers game. Only a Leftie who didn't value individuals can be comfortable in doing that. I say this: you can advance no argument telling me that the victim in this case didn't deserve to live !! Since she DID .. then, she also deserved a means of defence !!

Thanks to our draconian gun laws, SHE WAS DEPRIVED OF THAT DEFENCE, AND DIED A GRUESOME DEATH, AT THE HANDS OF A MADMAN.

Will you shrug that off, and further play your Leftie numbers game with peoples' LIVES, Noir ? Or .. could it just be that individual lives MATTER, and deserve not to be under a wholly avoidable threat ??

[Drummond]

But the people who are alive who were able to not be within Arms reach of a murderer are alive.

Perpetuating your 'numbers game' argument, eh, Noir ?

Here's a thought for you (far more applicable to the sheer stupidity prevalent in the UK, of course) ...

Criminals don't respect the law. They won't be stopped from obtaining a firearm because a law insists upon it.

Law-abiding citizens (unfortunately ?) WILL be.

Can you see that this gives an advantage to any gun-toting criminals out there ? It isn't rocket science, Noir !! (... and even if it were .. there are rocket launchers out there, too !!).

In a scenario where gun laws are relaxed, the law-abiding citizen gains the advantage of gun ownership, previously restricted or even forbidden. This creates the proper potential for weapons parity between criminal and the majority of citizens. A single armed criminal, in (- say -) an urban / suburban area might enter that area armed, but would do so knowing that any attempt to so much as brandish the weapon could see neighbour after neighbour aiming other weapons right back at the aggressor.

Result: threat neutralised.

Yes ? Makes sense ?

Or, Noir, will your loyalty to anti-gun propagandists on the Left prevent you from conceding the sense in this argument ?

[.. silly question, really .... eh .. ?]

[Elessar]

The fact you're overlooking is that gun ownership, as a physical fact, isn't impossible in the UK.

...snipped for brevity...

Will you shrug that off, and further play your Leftie numbers game with peoples' LIVES, Noir ? Or .. could it just be that individual lives MATTER, and deserve not to be under a wholly avoidable threat ??

All Noir does is chime in with his leftie, pacifist rhetoric....Then continue then with the question "WHY" to confront each issue.
A child will continually ask "WHY".

Noir has not grown up.

[Drummond]

All Noir does is chime in with his leftie, pacifist rhetoric....Then continue then with the question "WHY" to confront each issue.
A child will continually ask "WHY".

Noir has not grown up.

In fact, Noir is subject to that classic Leftie trap that his kind cannot escape from. It is that he's wedded to a propagandist imperative that he cannot break from.

Those on the Left only see what they want to see. Their whole 'philosophical' edifice is based on a totally rigid adherence to their preconceived worldview. That their worldview doesn't, and cannot, address real issues in the real world is not only their Achilles' heel, but it also defines their perpetual unfitness to attain positions of real authority over peoples' lives.

[CSM]

In fact, Noir is subject to that classic Leftie trap that his kind cannot escape from. It is that he's wedded to a propagandist imperative that he cannot break from.

Those on the Left only see what they want to see. Their whole 'philosophical' edifice is based on a totally rigid adherence to their preconceived worldview. That their worldview doesn't, and cannot, address real issues in the real world is not only their Achilles' heel, but it also defines their perpetual unfitness to attain positions of real authority over peoples' lives.

If you hide under the covers and close your eyes really tight, the boogey man wont get you!

[Kathianne]

If you hide under the covers and close your eyes really tight, the boogey man wont get you!

Do I detect sarcasm? Do not disabuse me of my safety valve.

[Kathianne]

Would you rather the people committing knife crimes had access to guns instead?

Why aren’t all these people committing knife crimes committing gun crimes?

While NYC has strict gun control laws, it's not London:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/


After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control
William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 5:23 p.m. ET April 9, 2018 | Updated 6:00 p.m. ET April 9, 2018

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time.


"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."


There have been more than 50 homicides in London so far in 2018, and much of the violence is tied to gangs.


Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York — which has a population roughly the same size as London — has seen a steady decline in violent crime.


There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided to USA TODAY by London's Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department.

...

[CSM]

Do I detect sarcasm? Do not disabuse me of my safety valve.

I got a job as a boogey man once....

[STTAB]

I don't know if anyone has done this particular study, but I'd be interested to know how many of the "Mass shooters" did not or or were not scheduled to graduate from high school on time.

[Drummond]

If you hide under the covers and close your eyes really tight, the boogey man wont get you!

Fatal mistake, that .. underestimating the Left ......:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

I got a job as a boogey man once....

Did it pay well .. ? :rolleyes:

If I'm going to keep taking Noir on in these threads, I might as well get a salary for it.:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

While NYC has strict gun control laws, it's not London:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/

I'm incredulous ! WHAT crackdown ???

Knife crime, certainly since 2018, is getting worse !! I hadn't heard of any 'crackdown', and I've seen no evidence of one. All Khan does these days is to try and attack our Conservative Government over police funding, and basically refusing to accept responsibility for the extent of those crimes in HIS city, on HIS watch.

I could wish he'd put as much energy and commitment into trying to tackle knife crime, as he has in attacking President Trump !!

This is from just two months ago (& it's from the Guardian) ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/17/theres-more-knife-more-drugs-east-london-frustration-at-latest-stabbing


Residents of Stratford, east London, have voiced their fears and frustration over rising violence in the area after the fatal stabbing of a man in his 40s in the early hours of Monday.

The death in Whalebone Lane was one of four suspected murders to occur in four days in London. It followed three homicides in the space of 24 hours, including two teenagers who were killed on Friday evening.

Ahsan Malik, 59, manager of Olympac internet cafe, yards from where the latest incident took place, described gang-related crime in the area as a “scary situation”. “There’s more knife crime, more drugs,” he said. “I see the police and they’re doing all they can, but they can’t control the young people.”

Scotland Yard said officers were called by paramedics at about 12.40am and the victim was pronounced dead about 20 minutes later.

Tina Bowers, 58, who lives about 10 minutes from the scene and whose route home was obstructed by the police cordon on Monday afternoon, said she had stopped going out after dark because of increasing violence on the streets.

“It’s getting worse. What is going to stop it? Stop and search – that ain’t going to stop it,” she said. Though Bowers felt police were trying their best to tackle crime, she added that declining numbers of youth clubs in the area meant there were more teenagers on the streets.

Her friend Debra Sparks, 61, was less perturbed about leaving the house at night, but added: “I’ve got my husband and my son, though – and the dog.”

One man, who declined to give his name, said he had started walking a different route back from his restaurant job near Stratford Park – adjacent to the crime scene – because of “young men hanging around”. “There are drug dealers everywhere – you see them all the time. I don’t know why they’re not scared of this, because the police station is just there,” he added.

A string of nonfatal attacks also took place over the weekend, including the shooting of a 28-year-old in east London on Monday morning and a stabbing on Saturday that left a 45-year-old in a critical condition.

On Friday afternoon, an 18-year-old, named in reports as Cheyon Evans, was found stabbed on Deeside Road in Wandsworth, south-west London, and died at the scene.

A 17-year-old from Merton, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and Mohammed Nadir Dafallah, 18, from Wandsworth, have been charged with murder and were due in court on Monday.

In the second incident, Eniola Aluko, 19, from Thamesmead in south-east London, was found with critical injuries after reports of a shooting in Plumstead. He too died at the scene.


Though the attacks are believed to be unrelated, dealing with the incidents had put added pressure on the Metropolitan police, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan. “Our overstretched police are working around the clock to keep Londoners safe. They need our support to end this scourge of violence.”

The US president, Donald Trump, lashed out at Khan on Sunday, quoting the far-right commentator Katie Hopkins to accuse him of being “a disaster” over the violence. Trump was criticised for the attack – despite the support of the foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who said he would “150% agree” with the overall statement – but on Monday, some Stratford residents seemed to share resentment toward Khan.

“It’s alright him going to see the kids when they’re playing football, but I’ve never seen him around here when something happens,” said Sparks. “He is useless.”

[Kathianne]

I'm incredulous ! WHAT crackdown ???

Knife crime, certainly since 2018, is getting worse !! I hadn't heard of any 'crackdown', and I've seen no evidence of one. All Khan does these days is to try and attack our Conservative Government over police funding, and basically refusing to accept responsibility for the extent of those crimes in HIS city, on HIS watch.

I could wish he'd put as much energy and commitment into trying to tackle knife crime, as he has in attacking President Trump !!

This is from just two months ago (& it's from the Guardian) ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/17/theres-more-knife-more-drugs-east-london-frustration-at-latest-stabbing

Check this out, the graphics won't be copied.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

[icansayit]

Check this out, the graphics won't be copied.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEScqaFWx-o

[Kathianne]

<div data-idt-uuid="712a4198-6f04-4145-b471-c45444bcf4f4"><div data-graphicuuid="712a4198-6f04-4145-b471-c45444bcf4f4" dir="ltr" class="VegaGraphic__GraphicContainer-hdlj7c-0 eygjsY"><h2 class="components__EditorialTitle-s4q8aoa-4 bCwWpe">Total knife offences in England and Wales</h2><p class="components__EditorialSubtitle-s4q8aoa-5 YjuiG">Offences involving a knife or sharp instrument</p><div data-vegacontainer="true" class="VegaGraph__VegaContainer-s1vljnmg-0 fMcNIw"></div><span class="components__EditorialFooterDiv-s4q8aoa-0 kKlRIM"><span class="components__EditorialFooterSource-s4q8aoa-2 eaehaZ"><div>Source: Home Office, year ending March. Figures exclude Greater Manchester.</div><svg height="15" width="45" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-label="BBCLogo" viewBox="0 0 211.122 60.482" rtl="ltr" class="components__EditorialFooterBBCLogo-s4q8aoa-3 fFKUty"><g fill-rule="evenodd"><defs><path id="SVGID_1_" d="M0 0h211.122v60.482H0z"></path></defs><clipPath id="SVGID_2_"><use xlink:href="#SVGID_1_" overflow="visible"></use></clipPath><path d="M187.413 8.567c-.28-.048-.568-.095-.86-.14l-.346-.05c-.487-.067-.984-.123-1.484-.17-.34-.033-.68-.056-1.018-.076-.603-.037-1.2-.052-1.774-.052-.262 0-.412.005-.668.008-.483.008-.952.03-1.415.06-.264.017-.523.04-.78.062-.38.034-.756.075-1.125.122l-.31.042-.342.05-.423.067c-.186.03-.367.062-.547.095-.25.047-.5.097-.746.148-1.514.32-2.914.746-4.208 1.25-.666.26-1.31.54-1.917.84-.507.247-.996.504-1.464.774-.455.263-.893.528-1.312.81-.242.16-.48.323-.71.49-.198.143-.395.286-.586.434-.403.313-.795.63-1.16.955-.342.303-.675.61-.984.918-.267.267-.534.537-.787.82-.255.287-.51.576-.754.877-.265.328-.526.663-.776 1.01-.184.257-.364.518-.538.784-.12.18-.234.362-.348.546-.666 1.088-1.25 2.254-1.727 3.497-.598 1.55-1.03 3.216-1.267 4.99-.074.557-.132 1.124-.165 1.704-.025.445-.043.896-.043 1.353 0 .342.003.68.025 1.014.023.35.05.694.09 1.036l.025.24c.052.406.114.805.19 1.2.03.152.062.307.095.46.07.328.147.652.233.97.11 2.413.23.818.364 1.216.165.487.34.964.534 1.426.308.735.644 1.44 1.008 2.103.214.39.433.77.66 1.133.183.292.37.57.56.846.248.36.507.707.762 1.037.27.35.55.677.82.99.34.39.683.748 1.013 1.077l.18.175c.274.264.57.55.913.84.233.198.474.40 6.737.612.245.192.497.39.768.583.322.23.66.466 1.02.698.38.244.78.49 1.207.728.843.472 1.773.925 2.797 1.337.382.152.778.3 1.188.44.405.138.82.267 1.252.392.734.208 1.507.395 2.318.553.652.127 1.332.232 2.034.317.698.084 1.42.15 2.17.187.363.018.732.032 1.107.038.172.003.347.007.52.007 1.343 0 2.584-.05 3.733-.146l.226-.02c.46-.042.9-.09 1.33-.142.656-.082 1.285-.18 1.88-.285.377-.07.74-.143 1.095-.218.55-.118 1.072-.246 1.572-.378.367-.097.724-.2 1.065-.303.41-.123.807-.254 1.18-.382l.364-.127c.18-.064.427-.152.718-.266.384-.15.848-.333 1.375-.558.313-.135.655-.288 1.004-.45.31-.14.64-.3.968-.46.14-.068.28-.132.42-.203v-8.19c-.094.06-.196.12-.293.178l-.562.34c-.56.34-1.1.658-1.643.954-.595.322-1.175.62-1.75.892-1.014.477-1.983.88-2.924 1.217-1.783.64-3.424 1.05-4.87 1.3-.17.03-.34.058-.506.084-.4.063-.78.11-1.148.15-.572.063-1.1.095-1.58.118-.31.013-.6.02-.87.02-.58 0-1.178-.015-1.787-.058-.713-.05-1.44-.13-2.172-.254-1.185-.198-2.373-.5-3.537-.92-.17-.062-.343-.132-.514-.2-.11-.042-.225-.09-.333-.136-.192-.082-.38-.163-.57-.252-.398-.19-.797-.393-1.185-.612-.19-.11-.378-.224-.578-.347-.194-.123-.39-.25-.578-.38-.24-.168-.476-.338-.708-.52-.22-.175-.45-.362-.64-.53l-.272-.244-.135-.124-.08-.076-.1-.095c-.367-.366-.705-.735-1.012-1.104-.172-.208-.334-.416-.488-.626-.15-.2-.287-.406-.42-.606-.127-.19-.246-.386-.358-.577-.17-.29-.324-.58-.465-.865-.122-.245-.232-.49-.336-.732-.176-.41-.327-.828-.453-1.222-.1-.308-.183-.615-.256-.91-.214-.854-.326-1.637-.388-2.3-.023-.258-.04-.495-.05-.714-.015-.328-.02-.612-.02-.84 0-.15.002-.322.01-.52.018-.468.055-1.06.153-1.736.06-.41.144-.85.252-1.31.073-.307.16-.616.258-.938.09-.292.195-.585.31-.886.075-.203.162-.405.25-.61.12-.277.254-.553.398-.835.108-.21.228-.42.35-.633.27-.467.575-.93.92-1.39.125-.164.253-.33.388-.493.173-.21.357-.425.548-.63.097-.102.193-.21.294-.312 1.5-1.5 3.19-2.624 4.938-3.42.27-.123.548-.234.822-.344.28-.11.553-.208.836-.304.302-.1.61-.194.913-.28.288-.08.58-.15.865-.217.288-.067.58-.123.865-.176.317-.06.633-.106.947-.15.316-.04.63-.074.94-.1.598-.052 1.184-.078 1.755-.078.193 0 .38-.002.57.003.423.01.838.024 1.242.05.282.02.556.037.826.062.517.048 1.015.112 1.488.184.42.063.828.136 1.208.21.59.117 1.126.248 1.607.374.315.082.603.168.867.246.396.118.735.224. 998.315.455.157.706.25.706.25.403.143.795.302 1.184.457.52.208 1.016.435 1.494.65.397.178.772.364 1.127.537.292.142.563.286.82.418.448.23.826.442 1.138.61l.835.455V11.74s-.503-.208-1.37-.534c-.382-.146-.834-.317-1.348-.5-.287-.1-.586-.21-.907-.317-.254-.086-.516-.18-.79-.267-.306-.097-.623-.203-.952-.302-.235-.07-.48-.145-.724-.215l-.22-.062c-.238-.068-.48-.136-.728-.202-.29-.077-.587-.153-.888-.227l-.58-.14c-.318-.072-.64-.143-.966-.21-.33-.073-.668-.134-1.007-.196zM147.208.21h63.818v60.058h-63.818V.21zM98.16 33.33V45.13h7.663s.153-.004.404-.014c.258-.01.623-.023 1.065-.06.836-.078 1.928-.23 2.99-.59.963-.324 1.9-.81 2.615-1.526.275-.275.503-.562.687-.852.6-.946.753-1.91.786-2.455.018-.236.017-.375.017-.375s.004-.106 0-.29c-.01-.228-.036-.67-.158-1.142-.144-.56-.415-1.21-.896-1.803-.09-.113-.19-.226-.297-.333-.21-.21-.438-.414-.688-.598-.42-.308-.9-.572-1.42-.798-.688-.297-1.46-.52-2.306-.68-.433-.08-.893-.147-1.362-.19-.29-.03-.58-.05-.883-.067-.262-.017-.538-.028-.81-.028-2.72 0-7.41-.003-7.41-.003zM98.16 15.385v11.19h3.71s.248 0 .575-.01c.256-.008.562-.026.835-.04.763-.057 1.82-.163 2.876-.458.206-.058.413-.122.616-.194.828-.295 1.622-.726 2.24-1.333.49-.482.815-1.02 1.03-1.542.262-.64.354-1.253.392-1.687.034-.387.032-.633.032-.633s.008-.185-.008-.475c-.026-.488-.127-1.28-.51-2.043-.187-.366-.44-.718-.786-1.06-.417-.41-.923-.727-1.468-.968-1.045-.46-2.24-.644-3.247-.71-.438-.03-.837-.037-1.177-.037h-5.11z"></path><path d="M90.413 8.632v43.253h16.283s7.94.22 12.324-4.166c3.568-3.568 3.312-7.697 3.312-7.697s.257-4.31-3.047-7.616c-2.815-2.814-6.41-3.564-6.41-3.564s1.624-.762 2.872-2.01c.584-.585 2.662-2.462 2.662-7.018 0-4.59-3.057-7.23-3.057-7.23s-3.345-3.954-10.9-3.954h-14.04v.002zM73.673.21h63.817v60.058H73.672V.21zM24 .625 33.33V45.13h7.663s.153-.004.404-.014c.26-.01.623-.023 1.065-.06.835-.078 1.928-.23 2.99-.59.963-.324 1.9-.81 2.614-1.526.277-.275.505-.562.687-.852.602-.946.753-1.91.787-2.455.018-.236.016-.375.016-.375s.004-.106 0-.29c-.008-.228-.036-.67-.157-1.142-.144-.56-.414-1.21-.895-1.803-.09-.113-.19-.226-.297-.333-.21-.21-.437-.414-.687-.598-.42-.308-.9-.572-1.42-.798-.688-.297-1.458-.52-2.306-.68-.433-.08-.892-.147-1.362-.19-.29-.03-.58-.05-.883-.067-.262-.017-.538-.028-.81-.028-2.718 0-7.407-.003-7.407-.003zM24.625 15.385v11.19h3.71s.248 0 .575-.01c.257-.008.562-.026.834-.04.763-.057 1.82-.163 2.876-.458.206-.058.413-.122.616-.194.828-.295 1.622-.726 2.24-1.333.49-.482.814-1.02 1.028-1.542.263-.64.355-1.253.393-1.687.034-.387.032-.633.032-.633s.007-.185-.008-.475c-.026-.488-.128-1.28-.51-2.043-.187-.366-.44-.718-.786-1.06-.417-.41-.923-.727-1.468-.968-1.044-.46-2.24-.644-3.247-.71-.437-.03-.836-.037-1.176-.037h-5.11z"></path><path d="M16.878 8.632v43.253H33.16s7.94.22 12.324-4.166c3.57-3.568 3.312-7.697 3.312-7.697s.258-4.31-3.046-7.616c-2.815-2.814-6.41-3.564-6.41-3.564s1.625-.762 2.872-2.01c.583-.585 2.662-2.462 2.662-7.018 0-4.59-3.055-7.23-3.055-7.23S38.473 8.63 30.917 8.63h-14.04v.002zM.138.21h63.816v60.058H.137V.21z"></path></g></svg></span></span></div></div><script type="text/javascript" src="https://news.files.bbci.co.uk/include/idt2/static/js/verticalChart.2b024bc3.js"></script>


Did you mean this to be sarcastic? I really thought Drummond would find the link useful.

[icansayit]

did you mean this to be sarcastic? I really thought drummond would find the link useful.

sorry for the mess....

[Drummond]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEScqaFWx-o

This video is showing a Press TV logo. Aren't they Iranian ?

No great surprises here.

I spotted a Chalgrove Road roadsign ... that's in Tottenham, London N17. I know it ... runs close to the Liverpool St - Brimsdown railway line. It'd take you around 15-20 minutes to walk from there to the area in Tottenham that proved to be the origin-point for the 2011 England riots.

It's one of the nastiest areas I know. Tottenham is part of Haringey ... a London borough that's been run by Labour councillors continuously since the 1960's. If anyone needed the most exhaustive and continuously sustained administration of a UK council possible, this one must surely qualify. It shows us, without room for doubt, how 'successful' a Socialist council really proves to be.

-- Result ?

Haringey, over nearly SIXTY years of Labour rule, is poverty-stricken. Ethnic tensions simmer just beneath the surface. It's a riot hotspot .. the Broadwater Farm riot, and recently, the 2011 riot. The latter one was sparked off through a clash with the police over a gun killing.

Is this the nearest that Socialism will get to creating - undisturbed - a model of social perfection ??? I think so ! I offer Tottenham as proof that Socialism's 'enlightenment' is, when applied to an area and its people, PURE POISON.

[Drummond]

Did you mean this to be sarcastic? I really thought @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) would find the link useful.

I'm taking it that your mass of programming text was all you were able to see ? I got a fully functioning video, which I've played (& replied to).

[Drummond]

Check this out, the graphics won't be copied.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

Seen, & thanks.

This proves my point, to an extent at least ? Where is there any recent remedial effect from a so-called 'concerned' London Mayor ? I see no evidence of it.

All this just proves that knife crime is rife, and not dealt with at all. By the way, Boris just announced an expansion to police powers to 'Stop & Search'. That itself might make a real difference.

[Kathianne]

I'm taking it that your mass of programming text was all you were able to see ? I got a fully functioning video, which I've played (& replied to).

Yep, just a mess of programming stuff. Not intentional, no problems. I'm glad you got to see it.

[Kathianne]

Sadly, a very current example:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/16-year-old-boy-stabbed-to-death-with-machete-on-london-doorstep



16-year-old boy stabbed to death with machete on London doorstepby John Gage (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/john-gage)
| August 13, 2019 04:54 PM




...

[Kathianne]

and another:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/man-stabbed-face-britain-home-office



Man stabbed in the face outside Britain's Home Office, suspect arrested
Chris Irvine By Chris Irvine | Fox News

A man is recovering from his injuries Thursday after being stabbed in the face outside Britain's Home Office, officials said.


The unidentified victim was pictured shirtless and covered in blood being led by armed police away from the Peel Building in Westminster, central London, around half a mile from the Houses of Parliament.

...

The incident comes just a day after the Home Office, which deals with crime, security and immigration in the U.K., was criticized for launching a new campaign which aimed to discourage knife crime with messages on boxes of fried chicken.


More than 321,000 chicken boxes featuring the #knifefree campaign have been distributed “to tackle the senseless violence that is traumatizing communities and claiming too many young lives,” according to Kit Malthouse, the policing minister.

...

The incident also comes a week after a London police officer conducting a routine traffic stop was stabbed several times, including in the head, by a machete, in Leyton, east London.


The United Kingdom is facing an epidemic of knife crime. Data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in June showed that there were 43,516 police-recorded offenses involving a knife or sharp instrument in 2018-19, the highest figure since such records began in 2011 and an 8 percent increase from the previous year.


Fox News' Frank Miles and Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report.

[STTAB]

The sicko with no brain , Kristen Gillibrand , could barely contain her glee in her tweets yesterdsay. The situation wasn't even over and that bitch is tweting "we need new gun laws"

Just once I'd like someone to ask this dumb bitch "hey dumb bitch, what new gun law do you think that drug dealer who obviously was willing to shoot six cops would have obeyed that would have prevented this shooting?"

Democrats truly are the party of stupid.

[Drummond]

and another:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/man-stabbed-face-britain-home-office

You beat me to it ....

[icansayit]

Did you mean this to be sarcastic? I really thought Drummond would find the link useful.



Sorry.

[Kathianne]

Sorry.

No problem, we cleared that up yesterday. :beer:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yep... just as I said and right on que, JUST heard on the local WI news that our WORMY little COCK SUCKER, excuse my language but that's what I think of him, our GREASY little POS DEMOCRAT governor JUST announced that he wants TOTAL background checks for ALL gun sales in WI. Thank God we have a majority republican congress in WI and they said they're against it and doubt they'd take up the issue. We have a majority conservative SC in WI too.

I guarantee that had that disgusting little ferret faced ass clown said this during his campaign, we'd still have republican GOVERNOR WALKER.

[STTAB]

Maybe we should start taking guns away from people who refer to other people as vermin.........

[jimnyc]

Perhaps why Trump is leaning some towards the background checks? Are any of the polls to be believed? There are more media reporting in the 90's than just these few pointed out. I'm not a huge fan of polls as I think they can be swayed some - some, not into the 900's. I dunno anyway.

But is he simply going by public support? Does he want to take that support and find something that would leave his mark forever? Or, is he maybe using it as bait?

just a couple from 2017 until now. And keep in mind, they always get the higher numbers shortly after a shooting. And it's a poll, of course. But if they were to be believed, which specific questions were they all asked? Who did they call?

If they were to ever pass something large pertaining to guns, it should be put to not only the vote, but then also require the ratification by the states, as CSM pointed out. Even with reported numbers like that, I'm not confident it would win 2/3rd's.

I find it sad that many are succumbing to years and years of democrat lies and propaganda. Lame gun laws will not stop criminals. Fact. So make laws that MAKE SENSE, fight the actual issue, not the inactive knif, I mean gun.

--
Politics
October 17, 2017
Americans Widely Support Tighter Regulations on Gun Sales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The great majority of Americans are in favor of more stringent regulation of the sale and ownership of guns in three ways that go beyond current law in most states. U.S. adults offer near-universal support for requiring background checks for all gun purchases, backed by 96%. Also, three-quarters favor enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases and 70% favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police.

https://i.imgur.com/CaOaokg.png

Rest - https://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx


Poll: 95 Percent Support Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases

An overwhelming majority of American voters support universal background checks for gun purchases, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

The survey's results:

95 percent support universal background checks for gun purchases, while 4 percent do not.
Among those who live in households where a gun is present, 94 percent of voters favor background checks, while 5 percent do not.
The result is the highest level of support for universal checks since the Quinnipiac poll first asked the question in 2013, after the Sandy Hook massacre, the poll report said.

Rest - https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/poll-guns-universal-background/2017/11/15/id/826360/


Poll: 97 percent support background checks for all gun buyers

Support for universal background checks has hit a record high, according to a new poll conducted in the wake of last week's deadly school shooting in Florida.

Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed in the Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday said they support requiring background checks for all gun buyers, while just 2 percent were opposed.

That's up from the 95 percent support found in Quinnipiac polls released in mid-November and mid-December, which were themselves record highs since the poll began asking the question in early 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The Quinnipiac poll conducted in November came after a mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

Rest - https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374692-poll-97-percent-support-background-checks-for-all-gun-buyers



February 20, 2018 - U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Let Dreamers Stay, 80 Percent Of Voters Say

American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent.

Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.

Stricter gun control would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, 40 percent of voters say, while 34 percent say metal detectors would do more and 20 percent say armed teachers are the answer.

Rest - https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521


Two-thirds of Americans support assault weapons ban: Fox News poll

The majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons in the wake of two recent mass shootings that killed a total of 31 people, a new Fox News poll found.

Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.

Support for an assault weapons ban is stronger among Democrats, at 86 percent, based on the poll. Forty-six percent of Republicans and 58 percent of independents said they are in favor of a ban.

An overwhelming 90 percent of Americans support requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, based on the poll. The support is statistically equal between Democrats and Republicans.

Rest - https://thehill.com/homenews/news/457481-two-thirds-support-assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll


The surprising support for gun control among Trump voters, in three charts

Whether Congress passes new gun-control laws after the back-to-back attacks in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, probably comes down to whether President Trump decides to push Republicans in Congress to vote for such legislation. And whether Trump decides to push Republicans seems probably to come down to what his supporters think. Trump has never been one to cross his base — like, ever — and the New York Times reports he’s going to commission a poll of his supporters see what they say.

We don’t know how thorough his poll will be, but there is evidence from a recent high-quality public poll that he could find significant support from his base to push for new gun-control laws.

Fox News surveyed voters immediately after the El Paso and Dayton shootings, and the numbers show the momentum is there among Trump’s base to push for gun-control legislation on nearly every aspect of the debate, including: what Trump voters most fear (mass shootings over a terrorist threat), why they think the problem exists (access to guns is up there with concern over lack of services for mentally ill people), and what to do about it (there is measurable support for expanding background checks and red-flag laws).

Rest - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/15/surprising-support-gun-control-among-trump-voters-three-charts/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't believe a word of that, at all. I know damn well I could ask ANY of my friends that own guns, and that's virtually ALL of them, and they would say NO FREAKIN' WAY on universal background checks, PERIOD, WITHOUT HESITATION.

Those polls are pure BS.

[STTAB]

Perhaps why Trump is leaning some towards the background checks? Are any of the polls to be believed? There are more media reporting in the 90's than just these few pointed out. I'm not a huge fan of polls as I think they can be swayed some - some, not into the 900's. I dunno anyway.

But is he simply going by public support? Does he want to take that support and find something that would leave his mark forever? Or, is he maybe using it as bait?

just a couple from 2017 until now. And keep in mind, they always get the higher numbers shortly after a shooting. And it's a poll, of course. But if they were to be believed, which specific questions were they all asked? Who did they call?

If they were to ever pass something large pertaining to guns, it should be put to not only the vote, but then also require the ratification by the states, as CSM pointed out. Even with reported numbers like that, I'm not confident it would win 2/3rd's.

I find it sad that many are succumbing to years and years of democrat lies and propaganda. Lame gun laws will not stop criminals. Fact. So make laws that MAKE SENSE, fight the actual issue, not the inactive knif, I mean gun.

--
Politics
October 17, 2017
Americans Widely Support Tighter Regulations on Gun Sales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The great majority of Americans are in favor of more stringent regulation of the sale and ownership of guns in three ways that go beyond current law in most states. U.S. adults offer near-universal support for requiring background checks for all gun purchases, backed by 96%. Also, three-quarters favor enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases and 70% favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police.

https://i.imgur.com/CaOaokg.png

Rest - https://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx


Poll: 95 Percent Support Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases

An overwhelming majority of American voters support universal background checks for gun purchases, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

The survey's results:

95 percent support universal background checks for gun purchases, while 4 percent do not.
Among those who live in households where a gun is present, 94 percent of voters favor background checks, while 5 percent do not.
The result is the highest level of support for universal checks since the Quinnipiac poll first asked the question in 2013, after the Sandy Hook massacre, the poll report said.

Rest - https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/poll-guns-universal-background/2017/11/15/id/826360/


Poll: 97 percent support background checks for all gun buyers

Support for universal background checks has hit a record high, according to a new poll conducted in the wake of last week's deadly school shooting in Florida.

Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed in the Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday said they support requiring background checks for all gun buyers, while just 2 percent were opposed.

That's up from the 95 percent support found in Quinnipiac polls released in mid-November and mid-December, which were themselves record highs since the poll began asking the question in early 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The Quinnipiac poll conducted in November came after a mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

Rest - https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374692-poll-97-percent-support-background-checks-for-all-gun-buyers



February 20, 2018 - U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Let Dreamers Stay, 80 Percent Of Voters Say

American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent.

Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.

Stricter gun control would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, 40 percent of voters say, while 34 percent say metal detectors would do more and 20 percent say armed teachers are the answer.

Rest - https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521


Two-thirds of Americans support assault weapons ban: Fox News poll

The majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons in the wake of two recent mass shootings that killed a total of 31 people, a new Fox News poll found.

Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.

Support for an assault weapons ban is stronger among Democrats, at 86 percent, based on the poll. Forty-six percent of Republicans and 58 percent of independents said they are in favor of a ban.

An overwhelming 90 percent of Americans support requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, based on the poll. The support is statistically equal between Democrats and Republicans.

Rest - https://thehill.com/homenews/news/457481-two-thirds-support-assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll


The surprising support for gun control among Trump voters, in three charts

Whether Congress passes new gun-control laws after the back-to-back attacks in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, probably comes down to whether President Trump decides to push Republicans in Congress to vote for such legislation. And whether Trump decides to push Republicans seems probably to come down to what his supporters think. Trump has never been one to cross his base — like, ever — and the New York Times reports he’s going to commission a poll of his supporters see what they say.

We don’t know how thorough his poll will be, but there is evidence from a recent high-quality public poll that he could find significant support from his base to push for new gun-control laws.

Fox News surveyed voters immediately after the El Paso and Dayton shootings, and the numbers show the momentum is there among Trump’s base to push for gun-control legislation on nearly every aspect of the debate, including: what Trump voters most fear (mass shootings over a terrorist threat), why they think the problem exists (access to guns is up there with concern over lack of services for mentally ill people), and what to do about it (there is measurable support for expanding background checks and red-flag laws).

Rest - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/15/surprising-support-gun-control-among-trump-voters-three-charts/

These are the same polls that had Hillary Clinton demolishing Trump, and currently have all 20 Democrats beating him in 2020.