gun owners

[CosmicCowboy]

And congrats for finally getting it.

just for you

[pgardn]

This is what happens when you show your hand early on. The CDC has been down the gun control road before and this is why they have been restricted from doing so again.

You really like to wave your hands around and talk about how important gun registry would be because the stats are important. You cannot say how they are important though, just that they are. I think you've already realized you don't have a case here and so you're just stalling. Else you'd make a numbered list of the reasons gun registry is important, other than just saying it's important or "police allocation" and "talking points on forums".

We have already been through this. I led you along. Popped that head, and you can't let go now. So in areas with a gun ownership of more than 8 per average household, are there more gun accidents than with 1 per household. Does actually owning more guns lead to a larger number of accidents than owning fewer guns? You do realize it is highly possible that owning multiple guns in a household actually trends towards fewer accidents. Maybe because this is more common in rural areas where they take great care in gun safety and hunt with various types of guns and are very familiar with guns in general. But we will not know this.

You apparently got the answer to the above. Do I need to continue? Are you not creative enough to think on your own? Do you need more help? Can you come up with another question that could lead to important public policy? Public health stats can give us some sort of answer. But you don't care to have it as it's not important to YOU.

Why is car registry important. Ohh for road taxes...

Jesus....

And it's fully clear to me it is you that have zero for a case against registry. Except but, but, they would know something about me and find me. Like, like, they could do with my car or house.

[pgardn]

just for you

Good for you.
Very nice.

[CosmicCowboy]

We have already been through this. I led you along. Popped that head, and you can't let go now. So in areas with a gun ownership of more than 8 per average household, are there more gun accidents than with 1 per household. Does actually owning more guns lead to a larger number of accidents than owning fewer guns? You do realize it is highly possible that owning multiple guns in a household actually trends towards fewer accidents. Maybe because this is more common in rural areas where they take great care in gun safety and hunt with various types of guns and are very familiar with guns in general. But we will not know this.

You apparently got the answer to the above. Do I need to continue? Are you not creative enough to think on your own? Do you need more help? Can you come up with another question that could lead to important public policy? Public health stats can give us some sort of answer. But you don't care to have it as it's not important to YOU.

Why is car registry important. Ohh for road taxes...

Jesus....

And it's fully clear to me it is you that have zero for a case against registry. Except but, but, they would know something about me and find me. Like, like, they could do with my car or house.

[DMC]

We have already been through this. I led you along. Popped that head, and you can't let go now. So in areas with a gun ownership of more than 8 per average household, are there more gun accidents than with 1 per household. Does actually owning more guns lead to a larger number of accidents than owning fewer guns? You do realize it is highly possible that owning multiple guns in a household actually trends towards fewer accidents. Maybe because this is more common in rural areas where they take great care in gun safety and hunt with various types of guns and are very familiar with guns in general. But we will not know this.

Again, how is this important? What would be done with the information?

Are there more electrical accidents in houses with more electrical outlets?

Information like this does nothing without a followup plan. This plan would eventually have to incorporate gun control legislation. Ergo it's a gun control issue.

What, are you going to suggest that people need to be told that accidental gun deaths are possible, like drownings, auto accidents, electrocutions, accidental overdoses and such? Does having more pill bottles mean more chance of accidental overdose?

You apparently got the answer to the above. Do I need to continue? Are you not creative enough to think on your own? Do you need more help? Can you come up with another question that could lead to important public policy? Public health stats can give us some sort of answer. But you don't care to have it as it's not important to YOU.

You're the one supporting gun registration, calling it important. I don't need to conjure up ways to support that, you do. Everything you've mentioned is already being studied from another angle. If you can show accidental gun deaths are more prevalent in specific areas than in others, then you can drill down on why. That's being done already. You still have nothing but a thinly veiled gun control argument.

Why is car registry important. Ohh for road taxes...

Otherwise it wouldn't cost so much and need to renewed every year. They know the owner didn't change nor did the plate number, they just say it's expired. How is it possible that it expired when none of the information changed? You're not even asked to verify the information. You just pay the money and get your new registration.

Would someone need to renew their gun registration every year? I mean, since you're making absurd comparisons...

Jesus....

Another myth no one can provide any evidence for.

And it's fully clear to me it is you that have zero for a case against registry. Except but, but, they would know something about me and find me. Like, like, they could do with my car or house.

Something proposed with no evidence doesn't merit evidence against it to show it's useless. When you apply for a job, do they have to show you how you're not qualified?

Basically you don't need the information you claim to need. It's not your business. If it was, you'd not need the CDC to do it, you could do it with local legislation.

[Chucho]

News from NRA/GunIndustry fantasyland

Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law increased homicides by 31 percent — and now they want to expand it

Gun homicides have jumped in Florida by more than 30 percent in the decade since lawmakers passed the “stand your ground” self-defense law.Florida was the first state to pass the law, which allows deadly force if a person believes they faces great bodily harm, and a recent study found an “abrupt and sustained” increase in the state’s homicide rate since then

monthly rate of homicides by firearm had increased by 31.6 percent since the law was enacted in 2005.

“It’s not surprising because when you lessen the standard for self-defense you create more opportunity for the use of deadly force,”

“When you have more opportunity for the use of deadly force you are going to have more fatalities. It’s pretty much guaranteed.”

Florida’s crime rate has been dropping, with few exceptions, since the law was passed — but that trend began a decade earlier, in 1995.

Baxley would like to expand the law by requiring prosecutors to prove the law does not apply in individual cases.

“The stand your ground law has been and will remain a political statement about the cons utional right to bear arms,” Rose said.

“It creates misunderstandings and a more dangerous environment on the streets of Florida.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/flor...e+Raw+Story%29

Hop a plane to Florida, stat.

[DMC]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some en y like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some en y like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

This would be terribly discriminatory against minorities. After all, liberals say they are already too lazy and stupid to get an ID to vote. How could they possibly handle something as complicated as gun registration?

[boutons_deux]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some en y like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

Yep, all that's great. Would greatly reduce gun ownership, greatly increase NATIONAL gun tracing, and the annual re-registration fees and govt insurance would pay for the bureaucracy and help pay the many $Bs per year that gun violence causes.

Add in fines for losing your gun, restriction of gun ownership for dangerous, ill, violent offenders. Less guns is always less gun violence

[CosmicCowboy]

Yep, all that's great. Would greatly reduce gun ownership, greatly increase NATIONAL gun tracing, and the annual re-registration fees and govt insurance would pay for the bureaucracy and help pay the many $Bs per year that gun violence causes.

Add in fines for losing your gun, restriction of gun ownership for dangerous, ill, violent offenders. Less guns is always less gun violence

Boo wants to discriminate against minorities.

[Th'Pusher]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some en y like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

It's certainly discriminatory against minorities.

[boutons_deux]

Boo wants to discriminate against minorities.

Repugs in red/slave states already legislate against (poor) women's "settled law" right to abortion, but that's OK with you racist misogynists.

[CosmicCowboy]

Repugs in red/slave states already legislate against (poor) women's "settled law" right to abortion, but that's OK with you racist misogynists.

You just like to pick and choose how you discriminate against minorities? em if it's something you advocate for, right?

[DMC]

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

[boutons_deux]

"2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms"

[Th'Pusher]

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

That wouldn't stand up in court imo as SCOTUS has already established the 2nd amendment is not limitless. Otherwise, you'd have gun nuts suing states with CHL laws. The NRA won't have that. They know they'd lose and they don't want that precedent established.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just like to pick and choose how you discriminate against minorities? em if it's something you advocate for, right?

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You you have to love how right wingers ignore the part where it says "a well regulated militia" and where in the federalist it is explained that the militia comprises all citizens.

[boutons_deux]

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

Just like you, guns everywhere for everyone all the time, and don't GAF about 10Ks gun injuries, death per year, $10Bs medical/disability, and $100Ms revenue for BigGun and NRA.

rich woman can fly out of TX, spend $1000+ total for an abortion, while a poor woman, denied condoms, contraception, perinatal care, is stuck with coat hangers, or an unwanted baby.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

I'm pointing out your liberal hypocrisy. You say minorities are too lazy and stupid to get photo ID's so how the are they going to be able to register their guns? You want to make criminals out of innocent minorities!

[boutons_deux]

CAP Report Finds 43,000 Hate Crimes Involved Guns from 2010 to 2014, Calls for Legislation Barring Individuals Convicted of Misdemeanor Hate Crimes from Obtaining Guns

Washington, D.C. — According to an analysis conducted by the Center for American Progress, roughly 43,000 hate crimes committed from 2010 to 2014 involved the use or threat of a gun.

The analysis, based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, or NCVS, was included in a CAP report released today at an event featuring U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and other experts on the intersection of gun violence and hate crimes.

The report looks at data from the NCVS and finds that hate-motivated individuals terrorizing communities with guns is not limited to high-profile cases such as the attack on the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, or a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Hate-motivated criminals and violent extremists often use guns as a tool to threaten and intimidate members of historically marginalized and vulnerable communities.

The use of this uniquely lethal instrument in the commission of hate crimes inflicts substantial damage on the targeted community, even in cases in which the trigger is never pulled.

Recognizing the heightened risk posed by individuals with a demonstrated history of bias-motivated threats and violence against members of historically vulnerable groups that are protected by hate crime laws, the report offers a new policy idea to help keep guns out of their hands:

legislation to prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from buying or possessing guns.

Rep. Cicilline announced today that he will introduce this legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

https://www.americanprogress.org/pre...btaining-guns/

[Sportcamper]

On a happy note: Colt SSA’s & Python’s are worth 10X what buyers paid in the 70’s & 80’s…Not a bad investment…

[CosmicCowboy]

On a happy note: Colt SSA’s & Python’s are worth 10X what buyers paid in the 70’s & 80’s…Not a bad investment…

My three screw Rugers have done the same.

[SpursforSix]

My three screw Rugers have done the same.

Bend over, I'll ing give ya a Three Screw Ruger.