* Do Gun Laws really only Protect Criminals, Tyrants, and Tyrannical Governments?

[hurst]

Of course!





@ Chris. Tell me how waiting period can stop someone from killing another. Around 9,000 people were murdered by a firearm in 2009 (Dept. of Justice statistics) but half that many were murdered, with a knife, club, fists, or some other means. What about the 80 million firearm owners in the US, how would the waiting period keep these people from murdering someone it they decided to kill someone? These people already have firearms so the waiting period doesn't have any effect on them. Now about the back ground check, it did stop the massacre in Arizona, Virginia Tech, or the Aurora theater, they all passed the back ground check. You have to understand that people kill people, not firearms, clubs, knives, or other interments of death.

Two days before the Aurora theater shooting a man entered a church in Colorado intent on killing a lot of people, he was able to shoot one person before a man with a concealed carry firearm shot him dead, death toll one church goer, and one scumbag criminal. The bad thing is that the theater in Aurora didn't allow law abiding people to bring their firearm inside the theater, they only allowed killers to bring firearms in their theater. The same with Virginia Tech, and the Columbine school.

@ Baron Munchausen. The background check did save any lives in the shootings at Arizona, Virginia Tech, or the Aurora theater, now did it? Can you give us one incident where the background check saved even one life?

[ashbey15]

It is my honest opinion that gun laws do not protect the public at large. For those of you who think a waiting period and a background check are a good idea, let me give you a statistic:

In the year I worked for a shop, I saw approximately eight hundred firearms transactions. Of those eight hundred, maybe eighty were delays which were never resolved, so we released the firearm anyway. What that meant is that the very government which is supposed to be checking this person out FAILED, and just never called us back, so we released the firearm. How does THAT protect the public?

Further, I think in my entire year there, I saw TWO cases where I was actually glad the customer got a "Denial" -- because there was just something "off" about them. Upside: I found out after the first one that federal law allows me as the salesman to deny the sale to anyone for any reason. There is no such thing as "discrimination" when it comes to the sale of a firearm. Federal Law. Good stuff.

I think of those eight hundred, twenty were flat-out denials. Of those twenty, eighteen were a case of mistaken identity, wherein the poor purchaser had to send in paperwork to the investigating agency with fingerprints et al to prove he wasn't the same person they ran in the background check.

THEN this poor person, who has now been embarrassed by a denial, has to come back in the shop and hand us this paperwork from the agency saying he's cleared, but just to buy THIS gun...this means, if he doesn't take further legal paperwork action, he will ALWAYS get a denial when attempting to buy a gun the normal way. Another downfall of "government efficiency."

What most people just don't realize is that every time you make a law, someone has to enforce it, and someone has to comply with it. And when it's the government both making the law, enforcing it, and complying with it...they have little to no motivation to do it right. No matter what their "we're being more customer friendly" brochures tell you.

So yes, out of those EIGHT HUNDRED transactions, maybe TWO shouldn't have gotten a gun and they didn't. Two successess out of eight hundred. Vs. the people who we may never know about who didn't have a gun and never came back after their waiting period...had that happen a few times, too.

When someone's daughter comes in to get the deposit back on a gun he's purchased, and he was shot dead during the waiting period, which is why he's not there to pick up his firearm, those friendly, helpful, "harmless" gun laws really do put a different perspective on things: The LAW just MADE A VICTIM. Yet those who wanted the law will never know; Those who MADE the law will never be held accountable, and a family loses a loved one BECAUSE OF THAT LAW.

Bottom line: Based upon my own personal, firsthand experience in dealing with federal Gun Law at the "why are we letting all these people get guns??" fountainhead, it is my honest opinion that they do more harm than good.

Gun laws, in my opinion, only protect criminals and tyrants. No matter what kind of "for the children" spin they put on it. They are lying to you because it is THAT important to them for you to be disarmed.

And if you don't know why, then perhaps you DESERVE to be disarmed.

[kendell]

About 95% of gun laws are dumb, generally just feel-good nonsense passed by ignorant politicians who want to be perceived as "helping."

We still don't do anywhere near enough to keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally challenged" or psychos, and even though the NRA & others have been encouraging that for decades, the left-wing psychiatric and social services community had been fighting it like mad. It wasn't until the Va Tech shootings that anything was done -- but if you look back at most of the nutball mass shootings, most of them had long been recognized as having real mental problems.

One gun store owner that had refused to sell a gun to a Downs Syndrome kid (over 21, with the mind of an 8-yr-old) was sued by the usual ACLU morons, and lost. Considering the erratic and often violent behavior by Downs Syndrome patients, arming them is REALLY insane.

Unfortunately, the lobby for nutballs is far more powerful than anything else in the country, and we have a body count to prove it.

[cleirach70]

About 95% of gun laws are dumb, generally just feel-good nonsense passed by ignorant politicians who want to be perceived as "helping."

We still don't do anywhere near enough to keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally challenged" or psychos, and even though the NRA & others have been encouraging that for decades, the left-wing psychiatric and social services community had been fighting it like mad. It wasn't until the Va Tech shootings that anything was done -- but if you look back at most of the nutball mass shootings, most of them had long been recognized as having real mental problems.

One gun store owner that had refused to sell a gun to a Downs Syndrome kid (over 21, with the mind of an 8-yr-old) was sued by the usual ACLU morons, and lost. Considering the erratic and often violent behavior by Downs Syndrome patients, arming them is REALLY insane.

Unfortunately, the lobby for nutballs is far more powerful than anything else in the country, and we have a body count to prove it.

Anti Gun arguments boil down simply
We're too incompetent to protect ourselves. (Stooge! You could hit a kid!)
We're too savage to use the tool properly (Barbarous Heathen Bigots!)
We're not trusted to stay our hand from using the gun against our "betters" (Rebel's! Assassins!)

Gun Control means MORE defenseless people. Gun Free Zones should be re-labeled Gun Free Kill Zones.

Since mass shootings began here? All the ones that had more than 3 victims were in No Gun public areas. Just like the theater in Aurora. Funny how mass shootings did not begin to appear so regularly. Until Gun Laws tightened the noose on the 2nd Amendment.

The solution to Evil is more Liberty. Not less.

[aldric13]

Yes, because only law abiding citizens shall pay the price dearly. This is why the greatest American states are those with the easiest gun laws. This is also the reason why America is greater than most of Europe and the civilized world.

[arvad]

I don't think the words 'only Protect' really describe the situation. They don't protect the afore mention, but they do make it easy for them to take advantage of the law-abiding public. By frustrating members of the law-abiding public into giving up their firearms, its makes them a soft target for criminals. The same could be said for Tyrannical regimes, they have less to fear from an unarmed citizenry that attempts to rebel. As a consequence peaceful protest can be easy highjacked, by those sworn to protect. Here again, if you bring firearms to a peaceful protest, things aren't likely to remain peaceful for long. So having an unarm public, makes it easer to establish crowd control with, tear gas, water cannons, pepper spray and batons. When unarmed citizens start getting shot with real bullets, this raises manner to entirely different level. Then, you are talking human rights violation if there is some means to bring the rule of law to bear upon them. In a theater of civil war it is often not clear, who is most guilty of these offences the rebel faction or the state, in most cases it is both. In cases of international interference its usually all parties that are involved. When you start lobbing munitions around there is always the possibility of collateral damage, that's what makes any type of armed conflict hell. But are the innocent necessarily all that nuetral, even the unarmed citizen can have a vested interest in one side or the other, and armed or unarmed you can support a cause, which means you can end up being a victim, or an accessory to the fact. Is all not fair in war? Who can really say, the biological reality of conflict is it serves to cull the masses, when enough blood is spilled, one side or the other gets to take power, and clean up the mess.