[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Washington Resistance Army]

This doesn't answer his question.

You super borked the quotes. But I've never been against background checks, and I'm pretty certain Jim isn't against them either.

[Sevvania]

This doesn't answer his question.

You super borked the quotes.

I think I unborked them.

I've never been against background checks, and I'm pretty certain Jim isn't against them either.

Ah, so it's not so much a case of an intentional strawman argument as it is an instance of misunderstanding.

[Gauthier]

This doesn't answer his question.

You super borked the quotes. But I've never been against background checks, and I'm pretty certain Jim isn't against them either.

We shouldn't be calling any of this "compromise" as that implies a two way street. The only thing the GCAs give up is their dream of total bans, while we give up our rights for nothing in return.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You super borked the quotes. But I've never been against background checks, and I'm pretty certain Jim isn't against them either.

We shouldn't be calling any of this "compromise" as that implies a two way street. The only thing the GCAs give up is their dream of total bans, while we give up our rights for nothing in return.

I don't think you're reading that quite right.

[Big Jim P]

You think you have a case to rest.

The case being you specifically shouting down enforced background checks as the first step towards gun confiscation.

Prosecution rests.

We already have enforced background checks. Part of one of the "compromises" where the GCMs gave up nothing in return.

[Big Jim P]

That claim is a really far stretch of what he is actually saying... Even coming from you.

How does background checks violate gun rights, unless it ties into some spook story about increased gun restrictions and eventual confiscation? And the only people who would lose any gun rights are criminals and the severely mentally ill. Maybe Jim is arguing for the rights of criminals and the severely mentally ill to legally obtain firearms then?

Maybe Jim is arguing against laws that target the law-abiding while doing little or nothing to the criminals?

[Aelex]

Maybe Jim is arguing against laws that target the law-abiding while doing little or nothing to the criminals?

Give to everyone the possibility to get armed and you'll see that the border between the law-abiding and criminal is blurring almost as fast as are melting the Iceberg in the poles.

[Big Jim P]

Maybe Jim is arguing against laws that target the law-abiding while doing little or nothing to the criminals?

Give to everyone the possibility to get armed and you'll see that the border between the law-abiding and criminal is blurring almost as fast as are melting the Iceberg in the poles.

I doubt that. Unless the liberals start mucking around with the law even more than they already have been.

[Aelex]

I doubt that. Unless the liberals start mucking around with the law even more than they already have been.

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

[Llamalandia]

Maybe Jim is arguing against laws that target the law-abiding while doing little or nothing to the criminals?

Give to everyone the possibility to get armed and you'll see that the border between the law-abiding and criminal is blurring almost as fast as are melting the Iceberg in the poles.

We don't " give to everyone the possibility to get armed..." In fact those adjudged mentally unstable and felons are not legally allowed to own guns in the usa. Unfortunately many of them still do. I think nevertheless the line between criminal and law-abiding gun owner is still pretty sharp. If anything stupid gun laws are the thing blurring those lines, making otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals.

[Big Jim P]

I doubt that. Unless the liberals start mucking around with the law even more than they already have been.

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maybe Jim is arguing against laws that target the law-abiding while doing little or nothing to the criminals?

Give to everyone the possibility to get armed and you'll see that the border between the law-abiding and criminal is blurring almost as fast as are melting the Iceberg in the poles.

Except that hasn't happened in any of the places with really heavy legal gun ownership. Texas didn't instantly become Somalia.

[Big Jim P]

Give to everyone the possibility to get armed and you'll see that the border between the law-abiding and criminal is blurring almost as fast as are melting the Iceberg in the poles.

Except that hasn't happened in any of the places with really heavy legal gun ownership. Texas didn't instantly become Somalia.

I love to hear the cries of "blood in the streets" in the morning. Sounds like butt-hurt.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Except that hasn't happened in any of the places with really heavy legal gun ownership. Texas didn't instantly become Somalia.

I love to hear the cries of "blood in the streets" in the morning. Sounds like butt-hurt.

It just doesn't have a basis in reality. I'll listen to that argument when someone can show me it actually happening.

[Big Jim P]

I love to hear the cries of "blood in the streets" in the morning. Sounds like butt-hurt.

It just doesn't have a basis in reality. I'll listen to that argument when someone can show me it actually happening.

Same here.

[Spirit of Hope]

I doubt that. Unless the liberals start mucking around with the law even more than they already have been.

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

What weapons would you like to ban?

Last time I checked the only ban that has seriously been put forward in the United States was of "assault weapons," which represent between 1-2% of all gun crimes. Balanced against which there is the millions of them owned legally and used for a variety of uses.

[Omega America II]

I doubt that. Unless the liberals start mucking around with the law even more than they already have been.

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

Actually you are since you clearly don't have a clue that having a gun is a RIGHT we DESERVE. That's why we have BACKGROUND CHECKS to stop CRAZY PEOPLE from HAVING GUNS. WE NEED GUNS FOR PROTECTION. I think I have made my point using all caps here.

[Dooom35796821595]

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

What weapons would you like to ban?

Last time I checked the only ban that has seriously been put forward in the United States was of "assault weapons," which represent between 1-2% of all gun crimes. Balanced against which there is the millions of them owned legally and used for a variety of uses.

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

[Big Jim P]

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

What weapons would you like to ban?

Last time I checked the only ban that has seriously been put forward in the United States was of "assault weapons," which represent between 1-2% of all gun crimes. Balanced against which there is the millions of them owned legally and used for a variety of uses.

Balancing gun crimes against the number of guns, gun owners and the legal uses to which ALL the guns are put, an the problem shrinks to almost invisibility.

[Big Jim P]

What weapons would you like to ban?

Last time I checked the only ban that has seriously been put forward in the United States was of "assault weapons," which represent between 1-2% of all gun crimes. Balanced against which there is the millions of them owned legally and used for a variety of uses.

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

Thus disarming the law-abiding.

[Spirit of Hope]

What weapons would you like to ban?

Last time I checked the only ban that has seriously been put forward in the United States was of "assault weapons," which represent between 1-2% of all gun crimes. Balanced against which there is the millions of them owned legally and used for a variety of uses.

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

Please define "concealable." Plus handguns are also extremely popular with law abiding citizens and have a number of uses, they also represent a much higher percentage of homicides. Out right banning them I am against but treating them more strictly, as many states do, is perfectly acceptable.

you see the big problem Big Jim P has generally isn't new smarter gun laws, such as opening up NICS, better information for NICS, etc. It is they come without promises to repeal older stupider laws. Really if you want Big Jim P to agree with you, give him something in return.

[Omega America II]

What weapons would you like to ban?

Last time I checked the only ban that has seriously been put forward in the United States was of "assault weapons," which represent between 1-2% of all gun crimes. Balanced against which there is the millions of them owned legally and used for a variety of uses.

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

And you ban it from those who obey the law

[Dooom35796821595]

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

Thus disarming the law-abiding.

Not at all, I never said total ban.

Besides, do you want shotguns and rifles, or pistols and revolvers?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thus disarming the law-abiding.

Not at all, I never said total ban.

Besides, do you want shotguns and rifles, or pistols and revolvers?

All of the above.

[Omega America II]

Thus disarming the law-abiding.

Not at all, I never said total ban.

Besides, do you want shotguns and rifles, or pistols and revolvers?

Yes if
All. It fact I own most of what you have just listed.