Guns are built explicitly to kill though.

So are:
Swords,
Battle axes,
Maces,
Clubs,
Flails,
And a number of other weapons, but you don't need to be licenced to sell those peer to peer.

And let's not get into the items that weren't designed to kill but can just as well as a gun.

Then those are fairly useless guns anon.

arguing for less gun control with the arguement "if a man wants to kill 1 or 100 people he is going to find a way to do it" is the most utterly ridiculous statement I have ever heard. if thats the case lets just give every covicted felon and mentally challenged individual a gun because 'it doesnt matter either way'. Look, as a proud gun owner im all for our right to bear arms but it should be hard to get a weapon. I dont have to worry about anything because I am a level headed and reasonable individual so I dont care if I have to go through a little longer of a process if it even means preventing 1 more retard from shooting up a group of children. I dont see why people have a problem with some of these things. if you are okay in the head you will still be allowed to get your firearms, and maybe it might take a little longer if anything but man up, have some patience and stop acting like a child. if anybody had the intention of putting out a piece of legislature banning all guns thats a completely different story, but theyre not

Guns and cars are very much not the same thing.

Something tells me a shooter would have done a lot worse selongb.

Yeah it is weird, but I've learned to expect incompetence from the government, you'll rarely be disappointed.

BTW, do you have any idea why I haven't been able to directly reply to your more recent posts, did we hit a magic thread limit or something?

Most likely it is thread limit.

An unmarked gun is one with the serial number removed, One would buy an unmarked gun because you can toss an unmarked gun without it being traceable to anyone through registration. Because if johnny lay goes to the last known owner of said gun, and he says, I sold it to theism, then your screwed.

An no, you can't identify a guns serial # by way of fired rounds. they don't keep record of that. You can however find out if two bullets were fired from the same gun. But like I said, you don't buy an unmarked gun to keep it.

I understand what unmarked means. It's odd that they don't keep track of the rifling when registering the gun as that's something you can't easily modify.

Let me put this all in plain text so you won't miss it this time. It's better to go to a crooked dealer, who I remind you is unaffected by this law, and get an unmarked gun. Selling unmarked guns as a dealer is already illegal.

I'm curious what the advantage of an unmarked gun is. Can't a gun be traced through the fired round?

Okay, this inability to reply to your posts is getting annoying, Admin tell me whats happening.

"And while it wouldn't completely prevent illegal access to weapons it would remove one avenue of access, and reduce availability"

One avenue that no one would take. If you are buying a gun off of an acquaintance, thats a trail leading to you not to mention when that acquaintance finds out that the person you had a beef with ended up shot . If you buy one at a gun show, you have to cover where you were at that time. It's better to go to a crooked dealer who I remind you is unaffected by this law and get an unmarked gun.

Now the crooked dealer can be prosecuted for his action though.

For some reason I can't report to #45... oh well.

If "The entire point is to reduce the homicide rate" then I refer you back to vehnum 's point "There is no mass shooting that we could go back in time and prevent with these laws". That means that there is little chance that the laws banning peer to peer sale would effect the homicide rate at all, since most gangs get there guns illegitimately www.urban.org/urban-wire/where-do-criminals-get-guns . So there is no sensical reason for this law to exist.

vehnum made an unqualified assertion I didn't feel like addressing at the time, but ignoring that it would reduce the availability of firearms. Illegally obtained guns are "lost" and then sold to criminals or directly sold to them (when they're not stolen). It would also make it more difficult to commit crimes of passion, as then everyone would be subject to the same waiting period. Registering the guns makes them more traceable. And while it wouldn't completely prevent illegal access to weapons it would remove one avenue of access, and reduce availability,

Something tells mean armed civilian would have put a stop to an attacker, tand here would be less of a story to report on If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. .


And why is body count important? In #23 you were opposed to linking gun regulations to mass shootings. I hope you can see the double standard here.

That's not really a double standard. One of the points about getting guns out of the hands of attackers is that attacks with other weapons are easier to defend against and are less likely to be fatal, this standard holds true for individual assaults or mass attacks. The entire point is to reduce the homicide rate.

selongb how many people a year are intentionally killed by those items?

Quick google search shows one instance of 2 dead and another with 24 injured. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34602621 www.hindustantimes.com/india/police-shoot-techie-for-attacking-parents-locals-with-a-sword/story-qIutXzWl1AVwIgDZk2Ct1M.html in the last few months.

Guns are built explicitly to kill though.

So are:
Swords,
Battle axes,
Maces,
Clubs,
Flails,
And a number of other weapons, but you don't need to be licenced to sell those peer to peer.

And let's not get into the items that weren't designed to kill but can just as well as a gun.

Then those are fairly useless guns anon.

Why is everyone obsessed with linking mass shooting and gun regulation. Why is requiring everyone trying to obtain a firearm to follow the same rules such a bad thing?

arguing for less gun control with the arguement "if a man wants to kill 1 or 100 people he is going to find a way to do it" is the most utterly ridiculous statement I have ever heard. if thats the case lets just give every covicted felon and mentally challenged individual a gun because 'it doesnt matter either way'. Look, as a proud gun owner im all for our right to bear arms but it should be hard to get a weapon. I dont have to worry about anything because I am a level headed and reasonable individual so I dont care if I have to go through a little longer of a process if it even means preventing 1 more retard from shooting up a group of children. I dont see why people have a problem with some of these things. if you are okay in the head you will still be allowed to get your firearms, and maybe it might take a little longer if anything but man up, have some patience and stop acting like a child. if anybody had the intention of putting out a piece of legislature banning all guns thats a completely different story, but theyre not

Guns and cars are very much not the same thing.

Something tells me a shooter would have done a lot worse selongb.

Yeah it is weird, but I've learned to expect incompetence from the government, you'll rarely be disappointed.

BTW, do you have any idea why I haven't been able to directly reply to your more recent posts, did we hit a magic thread limit or something?

Most likely it is thread limit.

An unmarked gun is one with the serial number removed, One would buy an unmarked gun because you can toss an unmarked gun without it being traceable to anyone through registration. Because if johnny lay goes to the last known owner of said gun, and he says, I sold it to theism, then your screwed.

An no, you can't identify a guns serial # by way of fired rounds. they don't keep record of that. You can however find out if two bullets were fired from the same gun. But like I said, you don't buy an unmarked gun to keep it.

I understand what unmarked means. It's odd that they don't keep track of the rifling when registering the gun as that's something you can't easily modify.

Let me put this all in plain text so you won't miss it this time. It's better to go to a crooked dealer, who I remind you is unaffected by this law, and get an unmarked gun. Selling unmarked guns as a dealer is already illegal.

I'm curious what the advantage of an unmarked gun is. Can't a gun be traced through the fired round?

Okay, this inability to reply to your posts is getting annoying, Admin tell me whats happening.

"And while it wouldn't completely prevent illegal access to weapons it would remove one avenue of access, and reduce availability"

One avenue that no one would take. If you are buying a gun off of an acquaintance, thats a trail leading to you not to mention when that acquaintance finds out that the person you had a beef with ended up shot . If you buy one at a gun show, you have to cover where you were at that time. It's better to go to a crooked dealer who I remind you is unaffected by this law and get an unmarked gun.

Now the crooked dealer can be prosecuted for his action though.

For some reason I can't report to #45... oh well.

If "The entire point is to reduce the homicide rate" then I refer you back to vehnum 's point "There is no mass shooting that we could go back in time and prevent with these laws". That means that there is little chance that the laws banning peer to peer sale would effect the homicide rate at all, since most gangs get there guns illegitimately www.urban.org/urban-wire/where-do-criminals-get-guns . So there is no sensical reason for this law to exist.

vehnum made an unqualified assertion I didn't feel like addressing at the time, but ignoring that it would reduce the availability of firearms. Illegally obtained guns are "lost" and then sold to criminals or directly sold to them (when they're not stolen). It would also make it more difficult to commit crimes of passion, as then everyone would be subject to the same waiting period. Registering the guns makes them more traceable. And while it wouldn't completely prevent illegal access to weapons it would remove one avenue of access, and reduce availability,

Something tells mean armed civilian would have put a stop to an attacker, tand here would be less of a story to report on If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. .


And why is body count important? In #23 you were opposed to linking gun regulations to mass shootings. I hope you can see the double standard here.

That's not really a double standard. One of the points about getting guns out of the hands of attackers is that attacks with other weapons are easier to defend against and are less likely to be fatal, this standard holds true for individual assaults or mass attacks. The entire point is to reduce the homicide rate.

selongb how many people a year are intentionally killed by those items?

Quick google search shows one instance of 2 dead and another with 24 injured. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34602621 www.hindustantimes.com/india/police-shoot-techie-for-attacking-parents-locals-with-a-sword/story-qIutXzWl1AVwIgDZk2Ct1M.html in the last few months.

Guns are built explicitly to kill though.

So are:
Swords,
Battle axes,
Maces,
Clubs,
Flails,
And a number of other weapons, but you don't need to be licenced to sell those peer to peer.

And let's not get into the items that weren't designed to kill but can just as well as a gun.

Then those are fairly useless guns anon.