What Happens After Calls for New Gun Restrictions? Sales Go Up

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
That is not the answer to the question. How much prison time would the guy with the flintlock get if he did not have permit.

Since the question is in regards to length of time, the expected response would be either zero or a positive real number.

So how much prison time would he get for having a flintlock without a permit?
Click to expand...
If he wasnt part of a military parade, and he didn’t have a permit? 10 years plus if he had priors (felonies, gun violations)
 
The gun laws and the gun sellers were functioning smoothly in the lead up to the Orlando massacre.
The guy was refused and reported for his suspicious behavior.

Where the system broke down was in the enforcement, where , for whatever reason, the FBI didn’t show enough interest to do anything about it.
 
There are enough guns in America now that no amount of gun laws will do anything.

People who believe, believe that their right to own guns comes from even deeper than the constitution, and they are not going to see their guns taken away by some liberals and their bureaucrats.
Waco wasn’t pretty, and any future attempts to move in on people’s freedoms, when those people are armed, will be just as ugly.
 
Darryl1958 said:
The gun laws and the gun sellers were functioning smoothly in the lead up to the Orlando massacre.
The guy was refused and reported for his suspicious behavior.

Where the system broke down was in the enforcement, where , for whatever reason, the FBI didn’t show enough interest to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Of course, he wasn’t refused because of any gun law, so I don’t know how you can say the gun laws were functioning smoothly since none prevented Mateen from buying weapons.
 
chero23 said:
My position stands
Click to expand...
Of course it does. At least you are consistent in your illogical stance. My statement about muzzle loading flintlock weapons not being used for crime, while yes it was directed towards you, was really to show everyone reading trough the thread how illogical it is to impose harsher prison sentences on an object that is not used for crime simply because its physical size is larger than the typical handgun, even though it is a single shot and takes a non trivial time to reload for the next shot. I remember reading somewhere that a proficient civil war soldier could get off about 3 shots in one minute, not very fast.

Maybe we should also give more prison time to someone who bludgeons someone with a baseball bat than someone that uses a hammer, after all a bat is bigger than a hammer. How about a drunk driver that kills someone while driving a pickup truck gets more prison time than someone driving a mini cooper.
 
Crossbones said:
Of course, he wasn’t refused because of any gun law, so I don’t know how you can say the gun laws were functioning smoothly since none prevented Mateen from buying weapons.
Click to expand...
Even if the toughest gun law was in place before he bought the weapon, you dont think he could have found another way to obtain a gun? Maybe he could have his wife buy it instead if he didnt think he could pass the checks?

Or he could go online to the countless private classifieds, heck I just saw the other day, in attempts to get around current ‘machine gun’ laws, some people/ companies are selling ‘pieces’ to a gun online, nothing stopping anyone from buying the individual parts and end up with a fully functioning machine gun.

This theory of trying to ‘regulate problems away’ has never worked, you have to address the source of the problem and in this case, its religious extremism.
 
mikekle said:
Even if the toughest gun law was in place before he bought the weapon, you dont think he could have found another way to obtain a gun? Maybe he could have his wife buy it instead if he didnt think he could pass the checks?

Or he could go online to the countless private classifieds, heck I just saw the other day, in attempts to get around current ‘machine gun’ laws, some people/ companies are selling ‘pieces’ to a gun online, nothing stopping anyone from buying the individual parts and end up with a fully functioning machine gun.

This theory of trying to ‘regulate problems away’ has never worked, you have to address the source of the problem and in this case, its religious extremism.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess nothing should be illegal because a bad guy will do it anyway.
 
Crossbones said:
Well, I guess nothing should be illegal because a bad guy will do it anyway.
Click to expand...
Of course not, it just means they need to approach the problem from a different angle (if their intent is to truly reduce or stop things like this from happening).

There are laws against speeding, but every city in the country, they write countless citations for it, year after year, but still, people KEEP doing it…this just shows the law is ineffective, it is not reducing or stopping the action, people are willing to break this law…same thing?

What good is any law if people are continually willing to break them?
 
Crossbones said:
Of course, he wasn’t refused because of any gun law, so I don’t know how you can say the gun laws were functioning smoothly since none prevented Mateen from buying weapons.
Click to expand...
When he went into a store and asked about body armour, alarm bells tripped in the shopkeepers head. He refused the purchase, and alerted the authorities.

It was common sense and intuition that could have saved lives, whereas thinking that the rubber stamp of a law is going to save anyone is a false hope. It pales in comparison to an aware gun community acting responsibly and proactively to profile people that they intuitively believe are up to no good.

These are the ‘boots on the ground’, and the intelligence gathering needed, and they were not being listened to.

Here is a case where the gun sellers were acting responsibly and proactively, and I don’t know what the authorities were doing.
It is the opposite of San Bernadino, when people knew suspicious things were happening next door, but sat on their hands for fear of ‘profiling’. Here it was the FBI acting like the timid neighbours.
 
Darryl1958 said:
When he went into a store and asked about body armour, alarm bells tripped in the shopkeepers head. He refused the purchase, and alerted the authorities.

It was common sense and intuition that could have saved lives, whereas thinking that the rubber stamp of a law is going to save anyone is a false hope. It pales in comparison to an aware gun community acting responsibly and proactively to profile people that they intuitively believe are up to no good.

These are the ‘boots on the ground’, and the intelligence gathering needed, and they were not being listened to.

Here is a case where the gun sellers were acting responsibly and proactively, and I don’t know what the authorities were doing.
It is the opposite of San Bernadino, when people knew suspicious things were happening next door, but sat on their hands for fear of ‘profiling’. Here it was the FBI acting like the timid neighbours.
Click to expand...
Of course, there was no LAW preventing him from making the purchase, so you cannot saw that the LAWS are working fine when he was legally able to make the purchase. I’m glad for the diligence of the owner of the gun shop, where he tried to make the purchase, but, depending on the diligence of owners is not a good system for preventing this sort of violence.
 
mikekle said:
Of course not, it just means they need to approach the problem from a different angle (if their intent is to truly reduce or stop things like this from happening).

There are laws against speeding, but every city in the country, they write countless citations for it, year after year, but still, people KEEP doing it…this just shows the law is ineffective, it is not reducing or stopping the action, people are willing to break this law…same thing?

What good is any law if people are continually willing to break them?
Click to expand...
Well, laws against speeding do slow people down. And, I’m curious, what approach you would like to take?
 
Crossbones said:
Well, laws against speeding do slow people down. And, I’m curious, what approach you would like to take?
Click to expand...
No, they mostly serve as revenue generation for towns and cities.

Of course, I drive I-95 in Virginia a lot. Nobody slows down. Tickets are just who gets to pay the road tax that day.
 
oliver927 said:
Of course it does. At least you are consistent in your illogical stance. My statement about muzzle loading flintlock weapons not being used for crime, while yes it was directed towards you, was really to show everyone reading trough the thread how illogical it is to impose harsher prison sentences on an object that is not used for crime simply because its physical size is larger than the typical handgun, even though it is a single shot and takes a non trivial time to reload for the next shot. I remember reading somewhere that a proficient civil war soldier could get off about 3 shots in one minute, not very fast.

Maybe we should also give more prison time to someone who bludgeons someone with a baseball bat than someone that uses a hammer, after all a bat is bigger than a hammer. How about a drunk driver that kills someone while driving a pickup truck gets more prison time than someone driving a mini cooper.
Click to expand...
So you would stop a vote on gun control over a flint? Boy, an im being illogical. <ight want to look in the mirror first, your making a huge deal about a flint.

If a flint takes you that long to fire, why, why would you have it as your 1st line of protection at home?

It seems to me your fighhting just to fight, not using proper arguments.

On 1 hand you and brendan I bleive are putting a hissy fit about a flint, yet you just mention how much time it would take for it to shoot. Doesnt add up to me.
 
ARSpade said:
No, they mostly serve as revenue generation for towns and cities.

Of course, I drive I-95 in Virginia a lot. Nobody slows down. Tickets are just who gets to pay the road tax that day.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. On highways, people do tend to go a speed where they feel they can drive safely and I do think with modern cars, that is likely higher than 65. In towns though, people slow down because of speed limits and that helps keep children and other drivers safe.
 
chero23 said:
So you would stop a vote on gun control over a flint? Boy, an im being illogical. <ight want to look in the mirror first, your making a huge deal about a flint.

If a flint takes you that long to fire, why, why would you have it as your 1st line of protection at home?

It seems to me your fighhting just to fight, not using proper arguments.

On 1 hand you and brendan I bleive are putting a hissy fit about a flint, yet you just mention how much time it would take for it to shoot. Doesnt add up to me.
Click to expand...
It really is not about a flintlock, it is about you thinking imposing laws on things that are not a problem is going to solve anything. It is about you wanting laws just to make more laws. it is about you wishing to see due process flushed down the toilet. I would not and i do not have a muzzle loader as my first line of home defense. I don’t even own one but criminalizing something that IS NOT A PROBLEM is lunacy. I am not fighting to for the sake of it. I am fighting against the big government mindset trying to grow government larger by making more laws that solve zero problems but would make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people.

Would I stop a vote because of asinine portions of a proposed law? you are darn right i would. If you want a vote on something, get rid of the do noting junk it contains and get down to the real issue at hand. Muzzle loaders are not used for crime. sending people to jail for them will not reduce crime or the terrorism threat one iota.
 
chero23 said:
So you would stop a vote on gun control over a flint? Boy, an im being illogical. <ight want to look in the mirror first, your making a huge deal about a flint.
Click to expand...
I wanted to see how long you would send that person to jail for, in your proposed law.
If a flint takes you that long to fire, why, why would you have it as your 1st line of protection at home?
Click to expand...
Did anyone state that it was for home defense?
On 1 hand you and brendan I bleive are putting a hissy fit about a flint, yet you just mention how much time it would take for it to shoot. Doesnt add up to me.
Click to expand...
On the other side, you would send a guy to jail for 10 years for having a gun that you know nothing about.

Why should we accept as ‘decent’ any laws that are based on ignorance of what they are trying to regulate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top