Americans Applied To Buy More Than 5.5

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wow i got an I don't think banning assault weapons is a priority reply. Uhhh yeah right.. . A few posts ago he said we still suffer gun insanity because we never had a real assault weapons ban. Amazing in a clinical kind of way.

You really have issues understanding simple points in a debate, don't you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You really have issues understanding simple points in a debate, don't you?

Illustrations help. Bad Daddy was good with illustrating his points with pictures.

[himher 634]

We all know and have demonstrated time after time that violent crimes have nothing to do with the number of guns and everything to do with the number of violent people. Guns are used to protect good people from violent people and gun bans prevent good people from protecting themselves from violent people.

If that is wacko then simply call your congressman and request that federal buildings and federal employees and federal police be put under a gun ban to increase their safety. Call your mayor and ask that the sheriff and city police be put under a gun ban because you feel that fewer guns on the street will make you safer. If you are not ready to do that then maybe you're the wacko huh?

Because we all know that the gun laws are the reason there are so much violent crime. Has nothing to do with poverty, drugs, no jobs,and less education.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Alright, once again for the cheap seats in the back: I DON'T THINK ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS ARE A PRIORITY. I AM JUST POINTING OUT THAT THOSE THAT CLAIM THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN WE HAD WAS A FAILURE OVERLOOK THE LITTLE FACT THAT WE NEVER ACTUALLY HAD AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. You can't measure the success or failure of a policy that has never been implemented. That's all.

so you don't support an assault weapons ban.. Bravo good.

Oh just for reading for fun on the ban that never was , like the lake that was never made.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."^[6]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."^[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."^[8]

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You really have issues understanding simple points in a debate, don't you?

I understand "simple" better than you could ever imagine.... i.e I get you...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Let's see:

T: Guns cut down on violence.

G: Prisons are violent.

P: Should be easy to verify. Issue every prisoner a hand gun, then, after the guards leave, lock all the outside doors, open all the inside doors, and air drop in a bunch of ammunition.

Your silly... really... Lets arm violent felons in prison and see if it reduces crime. Geezh You are generally more on game than that.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Your silly... really... Lets arm violent felons in prison and see if it reduces crime.

(quote edited to remove personal attack -original post removed - VJ Moderation team)

It would be a quantitative analysis, and no big loss if the experiment fails. Either way, society benefits by way of the experiment. Either you have faith in your assumptions, or you don't. Obviously, you don't, so next time we hear how guns make society safer, we can refer to your post here. Added to my bookmarks.

BTW: It is you're, short for you are, and let's, short for let us. If you avoid contractions altogether, you can avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Kathryn41

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well, the going theory is that everyone carrying a gun enhances safety and reduces violent crime. If that was true, arming everyone in prison would make prisons a safer and less violent place.

Well I think the notion is that those who may legally possess decrease crime. Personally, I lean towards agreeing with that notion, though I'm not about to say the evidence exactly solid - similar to my views of Global Warming actually.

[himher 634]

So you are saying guns don't deter violence?

This should be easy to verify. Disarm your elected officials, police officers, president, banks, federal buildings, airports, and everything else under guard. This would remove hundreds of thousands of guns. The crime rate should fall like a rock.

Let's see:

T: Guns cut down on violence.

G: Prisons are violent.

P: Should be easy to verify. Issue every prisoner a hand gun, then, after the guards leave, lock all the outside doors, open all the inside doors, and air drop in a bunch of ammunition.

Fewer felons make society safer. So - if guns are used in prisons, even by felons to kill other felons, then society will be safer.

Agree or disagree?

It would be a quantitative analysis, and no big loss if the experiment fails. Either way, society benefits by way of the experiment. Either you have faith in your assumptions, or you don't. Obviously, you don't, so next time we hear how guns make society safer, we can refer to your post here. Added to my bookmarks.

BTW: It is you're, short for you are, and let's, short for let us. If you avoid contractions altogether, you can avoid similar mistakes in the future.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So you are saying guns don't deter violence?

This should be easy to verify. Disarm your elected officials, police officers, president, banks, federal buildings, airports, and everything else under guard. This would remove hundreds of thousands of guns. The crime rate should fall like a rock.

That seems to work for several countries in the world in varying degrees. Why are you so sure it wouldn't work here?

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

If possession isn't banned, then it is not a ban. If sale and transfer isn't banned, then it's nothing at all. So let's try and not give out inappropriate nick-names. There's never been a ban of these mag or of assault weapons. Just as there is no background check for firearm acquisition. It's all just cheap, ineffective window dressing. And that is why innocent people continue to be victims of the firearm insanity going on in this country.

welcome to feel-good democratic party lawmaking. feels good, doesn't it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Fewer felons make society safer. So - if guns are used in prisons, even by felons to kill other felons, then society will be safer.

Agree or disagree?

So you assume more guns mean more homicides. Interesting. I guess the problem, in your mind, is that law-abiding armed citizens are not doing enough to reduce the criminal population. You think we need more Zimmerman's walking around killing teenagers, not less. Kill them while they are young, before they commit their first felonies. You are all a bunch of vigilante wannabees -- Just as I always suspected.

[himher 634]

?I did not say it wouldnt work?

That seems to work for several countries in the world in varying degrees. Why are you so sure it wouldn't work here?

[himher 634]

You are putting words in my mouth again. I have directly stated that more felons mean more homicides and that there is no correlation between gun ownership or gun laws and violent crime. This is the data and I didnt create it or publish it. Beyond that you are free to suspect all you want.

Simple and quick question and try to focus

Fewer felons on the street = safer streets. True or false?

(quote removed as it quotes a post removed for baiting - VJ Moderation Team)

Edited January 15, 2013 by Kathryn41
to remove quoted comment from a removed post

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It would be a quantitative analysis, and no big loss if the experiment fails. Either way, society benefits by way of the experiment. Either you have faith in your assumptions, or you don't. Obviously, you don't, so next time we hear how guns make society safer, we can refer to your post here. Added to my bookmarks.

BTW: It is you're, short for you are, and let's, short for let us. If you avoid contractions altogether, you can avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Yes no big loss I agree and fail it would.

As for proper use of contractions... google frankly my dear

Edited January 15, 2013 by Run Herschel Run