Meanwhile in Sweden

[Marty T.]

If the criminals are eliminated, then the crime spree if over. Cain killed Abel with a, uh, ummm, a AR, uh no, AK, ummm, no.. Well, we don't know. But he KILLED without a gun. Guns are not needed to kill, the mindset is what is needed. Eliminate the mindset, or the criminal, and the problem is gone. IT IS NOT THE GUN, and another law won't work, just will make someone "feel good about doing something" that will bother and harass the law abiding.

[steelap]

Easiest way to make sure criminals don't want to be caught with a gun would be to have summary execution as soon as the criminal is caught. To paraphrase Trump, "take the life, we'll worry about due process later."

There, togor, problem solved. Now get your mitts away from my firearms!

I refuse to accept that disarming legally armed citizens is the way to cure the problem of criminals with guns. How about enforcing the current, on the book, gun laws that say if a firearm is used in a crime, the punishment is significantly greater?

[togor]

I've never advocated or even slyly hinted at gun grabbing or bans, or denying due process. I favor none of those things. I am pointing out that denying firearms to criminals has obvious benefits to all. And yet even suggesting that arouses all kinds of suspicion.

[Vern Humphrey]

when you come up with a way of disarming them, im all ears. so far all you have is more laws and regulations which criminals dont abide by in the first place. then you dont seem to want them locked up, dont seem to want to keep the ones who are actually locked up there...... im still waiting for this common sense of yours to show up! my way is to lock em up, or eliminate them, you just want to pass more laws that they wont follow, so who is it that makes it "not a big deal"?

Truly bizarre! Somehow, he completely overlooks the fact that criminals don't obey laws. You can't disarm them by making it illegal for everyone to have guns -- you can only disarm the potential victims.

[kickshot7]

No one is talking about how these people get their guns but they want to disarm all lawful citizens.
Why can’t this idiots talk about the war on drugs and guns being sold on black market

[leftyo]

I've never advocated or even slyly hinted at gun grabbing or bans, or denying due process. I favor none of those things. I am pointing out that denying firearms to criminals has obvious benefits to all. And yet even suggesting that arouses all kinds of suspicion.

the problem is, your not denying criminals anything!!!! they dont obey the laws!!!!!!! problem with your common sense is, you have no common sense! 20 thousand plus firearms laws on the books, laws prohibiting murder, rape, theft, assault, etc , etc, etc, yet these things occur every single day, and somehow you think more laws is going to prevent any of them. criminals dont obey laws, they dont get their firearms the same ways decent people do, and they dont give one ratz azz about any written law, they do what they want regardless of our unenforced laws! if you somehow actually believe a few more laws will change anything, you need to see a mental health doctor, because your brain damaged.

[dryheat]

I would like to change the last word in that statement and add one. Much closer to the truth from past experiences. Fortunately they weren't my own. Unfortunately they were the experiences of one friend and another coworker. Several years apart.



That is what happens first when paperwork gets traced to the "last known owner" even if many years have gone by. Then, see if you can find and read an old faded receipt even after the laws says you no longer need to save it.
They both got out of it, but it costs to do that.

What you have described above is exactly one of the ways the Illinois FOID system works. I only briefly described one of the problems.

Ah...IL. Yeah, champions.

[dryheat]

No one is talking about how these people get their guns but they want to disarm all lawful citizens.
Why can’t this idiots talk about the war on drugs and guns being sold on black market

Oh boy, we're going to have to listen to this for a while.

[dryheat]

the problem is, your not denying criminals anything!!!! they dont obey the laws!!!!!!! problem with your common sense is, you have no common sense! 20 thousand plus firearms laws on the books, laws prohibiting murder, rape, theft, assault, etc , etc, etc, yet these things occur every single day, and somehow you think more laws is going to prevent any of them. criminals dont obey laws, they dont get their firearms the same ways decent people do, and they dont give one ratz azz about any written law, they do what they want regardless of our unenforced laws! if you somehow actually believe a few more laws will change anything, you need to see a mental health doctor, because your brain damaged.

Yep, more laws doesn't help. To quote "Ground hog day"- different is good. It will take something different. We've been down this road too many times. Americans don't want to give up the wild west. And I'm not being editorial. We are different here. If we want to preserve the constitutional right to own firearms then something American has to happen. If that's even possible nowadays.

[S.A. Boggs]

I've never advocated or even slyly hinted at gun grabbing or bans, or denying due process. I favor none of those things. I am pointing out that denying firearms to criminals has obvious benefits to all. And yet even suggesting that arouses all kinds of suspicion.

There are two things that criminals are scared of [from personal knowledge] a citizen with a pdw and long term incarceration. We have enough laws, we don't need more just enforcement of what we have. Steal a firearm, ten years per offense, use a firearm in the commission of any crime 20 years per offense. No time off for good behavior, "You do the crime you do the time!" Now where to put them??? The Sheriff in AZ stuck them in the desert in tents, the U.S. Government owns many acres in Nevada. How about fencing them in, put military tents there and let them "enjoy" the great outdoors.
Sam

[steelap]

I've never advocated or even slyly hinted at gun grabbing or bans, or denying due process. I favor none of those things. I am pointing out that denying firearms to criminals has obvious benefits to all. And yet even suggesting that arouses all kinds of suspicion.

I respectfully disagree.

1. You want to "outlaw" AR rifles. You see no need for them despite the fact that they are the firearm of choice for high power rifle matches. You have implied or said, I think (but may be wrong) that all guns that look like or incorporate the features of ARs (which means every semiautomatic and most bolt guns, from a Ruger 10-22 to a Remington 700 - it's just furniture) are unnecessary and should not be available (i.e. banned) so that criminals cannot get them.

2. How do you "deny firearms to criminals" without taking them away from those possessing them legally? As you have suggested (although I don't know that it is true, since the claims come from the man who said "Never let a crisis go to waste.") guns used in crimes in Chicago (procured illegally) came from bordering states (procured legally).

3. You have posted favorably on the California Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS). The only way that system can work effectively is for the government to have a database of all guns and owners, which requires universal reporting and recording of all transactions.

The right to bear arms was recognized and documented in the Constitution so that the populace could defend itself against a tyrannical government, such as those in California and New York.

[togor]

Steelap you're dead wrong. I have three of the "bad" guns myself, in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm. Some here have none at all. As an engineer I appreciate the technological advances they represent over walnut and steel. To name just a few:

No bedding and moisture issues.

Autoloader that can be cleaned from the breech end.

Inline buttstock for reduced muzzle climb.

And of course, my favorite as a southpaw, no bolt manual actuator on the wrong side of the gun.

Anti-gunners like a new phone every two years with the latest tech, but shooters are constrained to 100 year old technology? That makes no sense to me and I tell them that quite plainly.

steelap you're not smart enough to read hidden meaning into my words. I say what I mean and mean what I say. When I say I don't favor a ban, you can take that to the bank.

What I am capable of doing better than many here is talking about an issue and probing for the hard questions, the weak spots, without getting emotional about it. Too many gunners get irrational and see red at the first sign of a tough argument. Well the world is a complex place, and hard questions exist whether a gunner likes that or not. Many (most?) prefer to keep their head in the sand and ignore such questions. I prefer to confront them, to better understand them in case they are to be used against me. That's the difference between me some others here, right there.

So you can either believe me or not. It won't affect me or my ability to speak my mind one bit.

[leftyo]

Steelap you're dead wrong. I have three of the "bad" guns myself, in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm. Some here have none at all. As an engineer I appreciate the technological advances they represent over walnut and steel. To name just a few:

No bedding and moisture issues.

Autoloader that can be cleaned from the breech end.

Inline buttstock for reduced muzzle climb.

And of course, my favorite as a southpaw, no bolt manual actuator on the wrong side of the gun.

Anti-gunners like a new phone every two years with the latest tech, but shooters are constrained to 100 year old technology? That makes no sense to me and I tell them that quite plainly.

steelap you're not smart enough to read hidden meaning into my words. I say what I mean and mean what I say. When I say I don't favor a ban, you can take that to the bank.

What I am capable of doing better than many here is talking about an issue and probing for the hard questions, the weak spots, without getting emotional about it. Too many gunners get irrational and see red at the first sign of a tough argument. Well the world is a complex place, and hard questions exist whether a gunner likes that or not. Many (most?) prefer to keep their head in the sand and ignore such questions. I prefer to confront them, to better understand them in case they are to be used against me. That's the difference between me some others here, right there.

So you can either believe me or not. It won't affect me or my ability to speak my mind one bit.

see on the other hand togor thinks he is smart enough to read things into what other say. he doesnt want an outright ban he just needs him some "common sense"! when things dont go his way in a discussion, instead of seeing red, he just slips out the back door! yet somehow he thinks he is different in a superior way!! LOL

[togor]

"Don't feed the trolls"

[leftyo]

"Don't feed the trolls"

you are the troll! amazing how you dont like when other do to you exactly as you act to others!