Gun Violence Facts for 2012

Fox is reporting that G. Giffords' husband (Kelley?) purchased an ar 15 style Sig Saur "ASSUALT RIFLE" from a police supply store in Tucson Arizona along with a 45 caliber pistol. He purchased the rifle to show how bad gun control is. Tucson law demands a waiting period when the firearm is purchased from someone. In that time the store found out what his motovation was and refuse to complete the sale. They refunded his money and is selling the rifle and donating the $ to some gun safty outfit. Get this however, he planned on keeping the pistol! Apparently he forgot that giving up your guns keep you safe.

BroncoBot wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

First, Thomas Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man as he described it in Leviathan. Is a natural man and enemy to God? Sure, but that is a far cry from saying without government people will be out killing, raping and stealing at their leisure.

This is a significant point that you'd like us to just take your word on. I disagree with you. There are parts of virtually every city that people refuse to walk after dark. Do you know what's gangs do? Take away the government and gangs grow exponentially.



I'll take your word for this if you and I put $1,000 in a pot, you come to Fresno and I'll give you a route to walk from 1:00 to 3:00 in the morning. Short o you being willing to do that, we'll just disagree on what man would be like without a government



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And yet, shouldn't this support those who believe they have the RIGHT to protect themselves and their loved ones with whatever force they feel necessary? Especially when (I'm beginning to believe there is no if) the government collapses? who will make the rules after the government has taken all serious firearms from the citizens are left sitting ducks to those who did not care one iota about the law? Gangs, and you won't have your local or federal law enforcement to protect you anymore.

I'm a big fan of guns, I think that a CCW is a good thing, But I am also happy to have reasonable limitations on wepons. I realize that by me agreeign to reasonable limits on some of my weapon choices, it results in limits the choices of the numb-skulls around me. I am fine with that. I do not want pedophiles armed. I don't want a granade launcher in the home of someone who won't keep it in a gun safe, and allows a 4 year old access to it.



I love guns almost as much as I love cars, and we regulate the crap out of those things!

So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

ABYUFAN wrote:

I realize that by me agreeign to reasonable limits on some of my weapon choices, it results in limits the choices of the numb-skulls around me.

FALSE. The numbskulls and anyone who really wants access can absolutely get access to them. This is like saying that because it's illegal to enter the southern border of the USA without proper paperwork, it keeps reduces the people illegally entering the country to zero. If you like the restrictions because you sleep better at night it's still a pretty poor excuse to limit the rights of others.

Schmoe wrote:
So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

Nope but a pedophile caught with them gets more jail time. It happens every day

BroncoBot wrote:

I realize that by me agreeign to reasonable limits on some of my weapon choices, it results in limits the choices of the numb-skulls around me.

FALSE. The numbskulls and anyone who really wants access can absolutely get access to them. This is like saying that because it's illegal to enter the southern border of the USA without proper paperwork, it keeps reduces the people illegally entering the country to zero. If you like the restrictions because you sleep better at night it's still a pretty poor excuse to limit the rights of others.

I don't think that it reduces it to zero, but it does reduce the numbers... It works, just not most effectively. If you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it. But I know that many many many people do not own guns because they are precluded from owning them by restrictions that I think make sense.



I do think that it is alagous to the First ammendment - we regulate speach alal the time, commercial speach is easier to regulate, but our "rights" are not absolute, there are reasonable regulations on them. I get that a great many well-reasoned people disagree with me, and I'm OK with that. I don't pretend to know everything, or even most things, But I am comfortible that my position is sound

ABYUFAN wrote:

So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

Nope but a pedophile caught with them gets more jail time. It happens every day

But it doesn't stop them from having guns.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

Nope but a pedophile caught with them gets more jail time. It happens every day

But it doesn't stop them from having guns.

It does while they're in jail

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

Nope but a pedophile caught with them gets more jail time. It happens every day

But it doesn't stop them from having guns.

It does while they're in jail

Sure, but if they're in jail, then they're not in society so it really isn't important if they have a gun at that point or not.

Which is why we should be focusing on people and not the tools they use.



If you have a gun in your possession - even if it's not used - in commission of a crime, you go to prison for a minimum of 10 years. If you use the gun - wave it at someone, etc. - you go to prison for 20 years minimum. If you fire the gun, it's 30 years. If actually shoot a fellow human being, we will see you in 40 years. If you kill someone, you will not be getting out ever.

ABYUFAN wrote:

First, Thomas Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man as he described it in Leviathan. Is a natural man and enemy to God? Sure, but that is a far cry from saying without government people will be out killing, raping and stealing at their leisure.

This is a significant point that you'd like us to just take your word on. I disagree with you. There are parts of virtually every city that people refuse to walk after dark. Do you know what's gangs do? Take away the government and gangs grow exponentially.



I'll take your word for this if you and I put $1,000 in a pot, you come to Fresno and I'll give you a route to walk from 1:00 to 3:00 in the morning. Short o you being willing to do that, we'll just disagree on what man would be like without a government

Hobbes is dead wrong. Sure there are a few people that act no differently than an animal in the wild but 99.99% of individuals are good people who would never kill or rape or even steal (though the government nowadays actually makes people more likely to steal).



I'll tell you what though if you give me a pot with $1000 in it anywhere in Fresno and I guarantee you I can buy safe passage down one of the streets the gang controls for less than the government of Fresno would charge me for in taxes for a couple cops who never patrol that street. Not only that but they would charge everyone the same price rather than instituting a graduated income tax and charging me for a service I don't even want.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Which is why we should be focusing on people and not the tools they use.



If you have a gun in your possession - even if it's not used - in commission of a crime, you go to prison for a minimum of 10 years. If you use the gun - wave it at someone, etc. - you go to prison for 20 years minimum. If you fire the gun, it's 30 years. If actually shoot a fellow human being, we will see you in 40 years. If you kill someone, you will not be getting out ever.

Californiia has 10 -20 life

10 years if using a hand gun in commission of a crime, 20 years if you fire it, and life if you kill someone. Our crime rates aren't particulalry low though....

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

Nope but a pedophile caught with them gets more jail time. It happens every day

But it doesn't stop them from having guns.

It does while they're in jail

Sure, but if they're in jail, then they're not in society so it really isn't important if they have a gun at that point or not.

They go to jail simply for possession of a firearm. California jails have a bunch of people not currently on the streets, who would otherwise be on the streets, but for the fact that they were a felon in possession of a firearm.

Stated another way, they were prohibited from having a firearm, but chose to arm themselves with one, were operating otherwise lawfully, but they were subject to search because of their felon status, found to be in possession of a firearm, and are not in jail.

I think that that is a good thing.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

First, Thomas Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man as he described it in Leviathan. Is a natural man and enemy to God? Sure, but that is a far cry from saying without government people will be out killing, raping and stealing at their leisure.

This is a significant point that you'd like us to just take your word on. I disagree with you. There are parts of virtually every city that people refuse to walk after dark. Do you know what's gangs do? Take away the government and gangs grow exponentially.



I'll take your word for this if you and I put $1,000 in a pot, you come to Fresno and I'll give you a route to walk from 1:00 to 3:00 in the morning. Short o you being willing to do that, we'll just disagree on what man would be like without a government

Hobbes is dead wrong. Sure there are a few people that act no differently than an animal in the wild but 99.99% of individuals are good people who would never kill or rape or even steal (though the government nowadays actually makes people more likely to steal).



I'll tell you what though if you give me a pot with $1000 in it anywhere in Fresno and I guarantee you I can buy safe passage down one of the streets the gang controls for less than the government of Fresno would charge me for in taxes for a couple cops who never patrol that street. Not only that but they would charge everyone the same price rather than instituting a graduated income tax and charging me for a service I don't even want.

We are in agreement that Hobbes correctly described a portion of the people, we disagree as to the percentage. I can live with that.

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

So, a pedophile who has broken the law will, for some reason, obey the gun laws? I'm confused.



Regulations on guns only limit those people who are willing to obey the regulations.

Nope but a pedophile caught with them gets more jail time. It happens every day

But it doesn't stop them from having guns.

It does while they're in jail

Sure, but if they're in jail, then they're not in society so it really isn't important if they have a gun at that point or not.

They go to jail simply for possession of a firearm. California jails have a bunch of people not currently on the streets, who would otherwise be on the streets, but for the fact that they were a felon in possession of a firearm.

Stated another way, they were prohibited from having a firearm, but chose to arm themselves with one, were operating otherwise lawfully, but they were subject to search because of their felon status, found to be in possession of a firearm, and are not in jail.

I think that that is a good thing.

So, the police just happen to show up randomly at their houses and find the weapons? It seems like the majority of the time, a person will get a few years tacked on for being a restricted person in possession of a firearm because they got caught with it while doing something else illegal. So, in reality, most of these people would be in prison anyway.

Schmoe wrote:



So, the police just happen to show up randomly at their houses and find the weapons? It seems like the majority of the time, a person will get a few years tacked on for being a restricted person in possession of a firearm because they got caught with it while doing something else illegal. So, in reality, most of these people would be in prison anyway.

You'd be surprised. Yes Parole officers do random searches of their houses all the time, and stuff turns up. People get pulled over because the police know them and that they are searchable, and they search them and find stuff. Google "felon in possession of a firearm" and you'll see how many people are mad that they have a loved one incarcerated solely for being in possession of a firearm, and, again, I'm OK with that - but I understand other disagree

ABYUFAN wrote:

So, the police just happen to show up randomly at their houses and find the weapons? It seems like the majority of the time, a person will get a few years tacked on for being a restricted person in possession of a firearm because they got caught with it while doing something else illegal. So, in reality, most of these people would be in prison anyway.

You'd be surprised. Yes Parole officers do random searches of their houses all the time, and stuff turns up. People get pulled over because the police know them and that they are searchable, and they search them and find stuff. Google "felon in possession of a firearm" and you'll see how many people are mad that they have a loved one incarcerated solely for being in possession of a firearm, and, again, I'm OK with that - but I understand other disagree

I agree that felons should not be allowed to own guns, but I think that the number of people locked up solely for that reason are a drop in the bucket of total felons who illegally possess and that the laws have little to no effect as a deterrent for them.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Which is why we should be focusing on people and not the tools they use.



If you have a gun in your possession - even if it's not used - in commission of a crime, you go to prison for a minimum of 10 years. If you use the gun - wave it at someone, etc. - you go to prison for 20 years minimum. If you fire the gun, it's 30 years. If actually shoot a fellow human being, we will see you in 40 years. If you kill someone, you will not be getting out ever.

Californiia has 10 -20 life

10 years if using a hand gun in commission of a crime, 20 years if you fire it, and life if you kill someone. Our crime rates aren't particulalry low though....

Again, these laws didn't stop the crimes. Why would restricting firearms for law abiding citizens make us any safer. These numbskulls as you aptly called them are going to commit crime anyway. I'd like to have an ar or AK if a pack of them decide to show up on my front lawn.



My point is laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes. It doesn't slow down the flow over the border, and it isn't going to stop criminals from obtaining and using the most powerful weapons they can get their hands on.