Fox News Poll: Voters favor gun limits over arming citizens to reduce gun violence

Its politics. democrats and wokers have hated the Gun rights movement ever since we called bullshit on the Criminal coddling socialists fraud that gun control laws were actually designed to impede the violent criminals Democrats court as voters

 

The policy isn't aimed at people who already own guns. Why would it need to be? You would need to show that nearly all gun deaths are done by people who have had their gun for a long time to argue it's pointless (well, with the argument you're using, at least).

 

actually it doesn't because after several years of a mandatory waiting period, the instant check replaced the mandatory waiting period and crime decrease further. So no the waiting period only may have prevented suicides among ONE COHORT (five year groups) of older men. No crime reduction and waiting periods have cost stalked women their lives.

 

yeah it is-its aimed at anyone wanting to buy a firearm LEGALLY.

 

Because everybody who kills their wife with a newly acquired gun uses the black market while they buy some coke, lol

 

This law is already in place and it applies to all purchases. It is another example of the mindless laws that do nothing to make society safer. There is even a law banning firearms that allow the webbing between your thumb and forefinger to be below the level of the top of the trigger.

 

That is an interesting conundrum, but the data doesn't really support it. Here's a review with several studies, all but one of which trended towards reduced death with waiting periods. But I am kind of shooting from the hip here - I don't know if I'll find time to give these studies a good review soon.

Effects of Waiting Periods on Violent Crime | RAND

 

It would be more convenient if they only applied it to people who did not have access to a firearm otherwise, but I don't think they have a way to knowing that's the case, so that's why it's not done that way, I would assume. It doesn't seem mindless at all, but the data I haven't evaluated yet. Intentions are one thing. Effects are another.

 

can you find me studies that show that murders went UP after the brady three day wait sunset in favor of the instant background check? if you can then you have a point. Since 24 years of my life involved actually studying this stuff and keeping up to date on crime statistics I can tell you you will lose that argument. The main reason for waiting periods-other than to PRETEND we are doing something useful =was an attempt to drive gun shows out of business

 

100% of those that have decided to commit murder have access to a murder weapon. Preventing murder is complicated, so its much easier to impose laws on those that do not break laws.

 

It's not an argument to lose since I didn't take a position except to say what the intention of the law is. That's not the same as claiming I know it had the intended effects. I don't yet know.

 

fair enough-I know the lies advanced by the gun banning politicians who pretend crimes of passion take place when someone drives to the gun store, fills out the paperwork, pays for the gun, waits for the background check, and acts in a way no to cause the salesperson to be alarmed. And it's a complete and total fraud. gun control advocates are invariably dishonest about their motivations and their arguments in favor of their facades, almost always fail the factual smell test

 

Yes absolutely, all the time really! In fact advertising does JUST THAT Might help if you were to think outside the box and consider reality and the real world just a little bit in debates ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Try and think, smart phones go everywhere with the lil fatties today.. And the so do the advertisements. As for church and schools, well, all you can eat pancake breakfasts are a weekly event around here, to HELP THE POOR of course And school lunch's, fatty SLOP

 

A red herring, a false analogy and an ad hominem....just as I thought, you got nothing.

 

Remind us again when did the Louisville shooter buy his gun?
If you have such a large collection, what is the urgency for you?

 

Really? Can you link to it, because the readily available says the opposite.

 

Mass shooters, gang bangers, and career criminals, will get their guns with or without mental health checks. Just another useless bureaucratic waste of time. Those who are intent on offing themselves and everyone around them will simply go to the black market or steal guns. I oppose mental health assessments because of the second amendment.

 

Isn't that the purpose of any weapon? Isn't the purpose of any tool to make a task easier?

That the pencil doesn't write the words the person holding it does? Thanks for the complement I pride myself in making logical arguments.

Knives don't kill people. People can use them to do that. Just like with many tools.

Yeah again I know what weapons are. You aren't making a good argument. Weapons are meant to be used against people.

That's why people have them that's why people invented them. You have to show me that there is absolutely no utility in possessing them in order for your argument to be logical.

The weapons because they are weapons.

I know what weapons are for you aren't making an argument. You're just saying that weapons are against people or other threats.

To wit I would respond no ****, that's the point of them. You own them so you can easily use them to either defend yourself or harvest animals to eat.

There's no use in telling me that they're designed for that I already know. So does everyone.

 

Where did I say that? My question was where is the benefit to society. Can you answer?

 

No doubt you have pointless simping for idiotic laws that is worth less than thoughts and prayers.

 

We still have militia. Army doesn't serve the same function as militia.

Are you sure it's me that's misinterpreting?

 

tell us why someone old enough to vote and enlist in the military is not old enough to buy a gun

 

Sure they do and nobody ever drinks and drives.

Lol

This is why you people never get anywhere you're so disingenuous. We can all see for ourselves banning something doesn't work.

 

can you post a study that shows waiting periods decrease violent crime

the duty is upon you all who want to infringe on the rights of the law abiding

 

why should someone wait when doing so serves no useful purpose whatsoever. have you read the BRUEN decision yet. and if the louisville shooter couldn't get the gun from legal channels-are you claiming he couldn't get a gun. the guy planned this murder well in advance