Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
upant said:
this was a good idea when the gun control people pushed it but when the nra actually offered insurance the same people who wanted it was up in arms because they now call it murder insurance. imagine that
Click to expand...
The NRA still offers insurance – for the person doing the defensive shooting. Please start telling the truth.
 
Bradskii said:
Which I appreciate is like a bad weekend in Chicago for you guys but is still a lot down here.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, you actually believe more gun control laws (Chicago is already choke-full of them) will solve or at least make a dent in the problems that are facing the South Side of Chicago? Really?
 
upant said:
The various reasons for people to be placed on a no-fly list are chosen because they have been deemed a threat to public safety. Arguing for people on the no-fly list to have access to purchase weapons is a perfect example of “no common sense”.
Click to expand...
You cannot remove a civil right without due process. This is the USA, not China.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
upant:
this was a good idea when the gun control people pushed it but when the nra actually offered insurance the same people who wanted it was up in arms because they now call it murder insurance. imagine that
Click to expand...
The NRA still offers insurance – for the person doing the defensive shooting. Please start telling the truth.
Click to expand...
you misread my intent. i’m indicating that the nra saw a good idea and ran with it and actually offered insurance instead of talking about it
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
upant:
The various reasons for people to be placed on a no-fly list are chosen because they have been deemed a threat to public safety. Arguing for people on the no-fly list to have access to purchase weapons is a perfect example of “no common sense”.
Click to expand...
You cannot remove a civil right without due process. This is the USA, not China.
Click to expand...
wrong cut n paste i responded to this and didn’t type it
 
upant said:
you misread my intent. i’m indicating that the nra saw a good idea and ran with it and actually offered insurance instead of talking about it
Click to expand...
You are aware that it’s insurance for the person who pulled the trigger, right? It’s not to compensate the criminal that was shot.
 
Bradski:
It’s the mentality of the people who own guns is the problem.
Click to expand...
.
Why are you broad-brush-condemning police, military people, and higher level Government personnel bradski?

.
WHY do you universally think their “mentality” is disordered?

.

.

Or are you just singling out honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens with this bigotry?
 
Last edited:
OK here we go. This is the rate per 100,000, age-adjusted list for gun deaths per 100,000 in US states. In New Zealand the rate is 0.015.

Rate Rate
Hawaii 2.71
Massachusetts 3.18
New York 4.39
Connecticut 4.48
Rhode Island 5.33
New Jersey 5.69
New Hampshire 7.03
Minnesota 7.88
California 7.89
Iowa 8.19
Illinois 8.67
Nebraska 8.99
Washington 9.07
South Dakota 9.47
Maryland 9.75
Wisconsin 9.93
Vermont 10.37
Virginia 10.46
Texas 10.50
Delaware 10.80
Ohio 11.14
Pennsylvania 11.36
Kansas 11.44
Utah 11.69
Colorado 11.75
Oregon 11.76
Maine 11.89
North Dakota 11.89
Michigan 12.03
North Carolina 12.42
Florida 12.49
Georgia 12.63
Indiana 13.04
Idaho 14.08
Kentucky 14.15
Nevada 14.16
Arizona 14.20
Missouri 14.56
West Virginia 15.10
South Carolina 15.60
New Mexico 15.63
Tennessee 15.86
Oklahoma 16.41
Arkansas 16.93
Montana 16.94
Wyoming 17.51
Mississippi 17.55
Alabama 17.79
Louisiana 19.15
Alaska 19.59
 
Hi, @FiveLinden, you did not give a source for those numbers, it looks like Wikipedia. the rates listed for the States are not the age-adjusted rates, that seems to be the second table.
h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

i dont know where you got the NZ rate from but this Wikipedia page says it is 1.07, not 0.015.
h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
 
FiveLinden.

Do your “gun statistics” include police use of firearms?

Do they include suicides?

(If so, WHY didn’t you say this??)

What about “violent crimes in general” (if violent crimes are more prevalent are you saying people should NOT have a means to defend themselves)?

(If a woman is being assaulted should she ask the perpetrator for a “time out” so she can call the police?

(Do you think we should strip police of their firearms because of these “statistics”?)

What do you mean by “age adjusted”?

(Is an innocent victim being killed worth more or less if they are younger or older? What is the significance for the “age adjustment”?)

Do you think these “stats” are a good reason to dissolve the framework of the Country? Or just the Second Amendment?

Or are you saying MORE people need to be armed so they can defend themselves against such violence?
 
Last edited:
Common sense gun control:

Bump stocks and any devices that make a semi automatic firearm mimic the functional firing rate of an automatic firearm should be restricted to those who have the proper license to own and operate an automatic firearm. Or, since that would essentially make them redundant, bumpstocks and similar devices ought to just be banned out right.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon on “Common Sense Gun Control”.

.
Bump stocks and any devices that make a semi automatic firearm mimic the functional firing rate of an automatic firearm should be restricted to those who have the proper license to own and operate an automatic firearm. Or, since that would essentially make them redundant, bumpstocks and similar devices ought to just be banned out right.
Click to expand...
.

I’very heard the phrase “Common Sense Gun Control” being used for at least fifty years. The definition seems to change from month to month.

WHY should I accept YOUR definition (and not some other liberal’s definition) of “Common Sense Gun Control” Spyridon?

What assurances do I have that you won’t change your definition next week, or next month, or next year?

.

For folks reading this thread, “Common Sense Gun Control” is Liberal code which means take away all firearms from good, honest, law-abiding citizens and destroy their Constitutional Rights in this sphere as well.

To some of the liberals/progressives, this ALSO is politispeak for disarming retired police (who are under retaliatory risks for years of putting “bad guys” away) and for other “progressives” or “liberals” it means to disarm even many of the active police.

The only people I have never heard liberals call to disarm is armed guards for liberal politicians and a handful of other elites.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
Bump stocks and any devices that make a semi automatic firearm mimic the functional firing rate of an automatic firearm should be restricted to those who have the proper license to own and operate an automatic firearm. Or, since that would essentially make them redundant, bumpstocks and similar devices ought to just be banned out right.
Click to expand...
Jerry Miculek once fired 6 shots from a revolver, reloaded then fired 6 more in 2.99 seconds. That is 4 shots per second, equivalent to a rate of 14400 shots per min. It seems to me that Mr. Miculek’s trigger finger can be considered as something to make " a semi automatic firearm mimic the functional firing rate of an automatic firearm". Should his finger be “banned out right”?
 
Last edited:
Thats called a strawman.

It’s a logical fallacy.

Were not debating fingers or rubber bands, we’re talking about bump stocks and how they should be illegal.
 
yes, all deaths are included. Police in NZ are not routinely armed but deaths resulting from police action are included. The age adjustment accounts for differences between states.
 
Spyridon said:
Were not debating fingers or rubber bands, we’re talking about bump stocks and how they should be illegal.
Click to expand...
your proposed legal definition of “any devices that make a semi automatic firearm mimic the functional firing rate of an automatic firearm” is rather broad and not limited to just “bump stocks”. if you dont define exactly what you mean then there are those who are going to expand it to be whatever they want it to mean. what legally is a “device”? What is the “functional firing rate of an automatic firearm”

If you want “common sense” then the “common man” should be able to tell you exactly it is that is banned. you can not tell me that so i say it fails at being common sense.
 
I wasnt proposing legal wording but rather a general outline or the gist of the argument.

Legislators would have to define everything in precise terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top