JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The wp doesn't bother me any more than rest of the anti-gunner 'fake news' outlets as I neither read, watch or listen to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The topic is:
You Can't Improve Police Conduct Without Stricter Gun Control Laws


So let's stay on that topic, please.
 
Sorry DB.
And sorry forum members.


I'm going to take a much needed time out in this corner over here.

BE73EA38-B196-40F7-BCC4-FB5E7346A9CD.jpeg
 
Yeah sure; remove/repeal the LEO/LEA Exemption clauses from all the gun bills in all the anti-2A states, including the SOT LEO/MIL exemption from post 1986 machine guns and NFA items and see where that gets the police forces :eek:
 
This is a summation of one of the arguments dealing with this topic that I've seen on the more left-leaning sites I sometimes visit:

1. Nations with police who are not armed with firearms experience less police related shootings.
2. Police in the US need to be armed with firearms due, in large part, to the rate of gun ownership and availability among the citizenry.
3. Stricter gun control (or even straight-out banning firearms) would decrease the need for firearm equipped police forces.
4. Thus, gun control would lead to less police shootings.

To be clear, this is not my argument, but just one of the common arguments I've seen on this topic. I just thought I'd post it here to add to the thread and let people discuss.

(I also may shamelessly use some of your counterpoints when I debate on these other sites :p)
 
This is a summation of one of the arguments dealing with this topic that I've seen on the more left-leaning sites I sometimes visit:

1. Nations with police who are not armed with firearms experience less police related shootings.
2. Police in the US need to be armed with firearms due, in large part, to the rate of gun ownership and availability among the citizenry.
3. Stricter gun control (or even straight-out banning firearms) would decrease the need for firearm equipped police forces.
4. Thus, gun control would lead to less police shootings.

To be clear, this is not my argument, but just one of the common arguments I've seen on this topic. I just thought I'd post it here to add to the thread and let people discuss.

(I also may shamelessly use some of your counterpoints when I debate on these other sites :p)
How are criminals acquiring firearms? And what types are they getting?
 
How are criminals acquiring firearms? And what types are they getting?

I haven't done much research on this, but I assume that if a (prohibited) criminal wanted a firearm they would either steal one, buy one illegally from someone else who stole one, or convince a non-prohibited person to buy one for them. I think I've read that most gun crime is done with handguns (don't quote me), so I imagine the type they'd get would be a handgun more often than not.
 
This is an opinion-editorial piece. Granted, it seems all news outlets now only report op-ed news as actual news with a complete disregard for facts because feelings sell...no one wants to be faced with the truth.

Just the initial premise is a circular logic trap that, as usual, would solve nothing:
"You can't improve police conduct without..."

Simple solutions only exist in the minds of simpletons, of which this country has a bumper crop.
 
I haven't done much research on this, but I assume that if a (prohibited) criminal wanted a firearm they would either steal one, buy one illegally from someone else who stole one, or convince a non-prohibited person to buy one for them. I think I've read that most gun crime is done with handguns (don't quote me), so I imagine the type they'd get would be a handgun more often than not.
Criminals, according to the US Supreme Courts and lower Courts, by definition are not expected to follow the Law even after serving time. Also, Haynes VS United States says criminals are not required to register guns. So. According to the courts, only the law abiding are required to follow the laws, including registering guns. If they become criminals well then, they aren't required to register their guns:s0092:

So yes, they get their guns illegally, by and far most commonly through other criminals, be they stolen guns, or straw purchases or smuggled across the borders... all of which are already against the law
 
Criminals, according to the US Supreme Courts and lower Courts, by definition are not expected to follow the Law even after serving time. Also, Haynes VS United States says criminals are not required to register guns. So. According to the courts, only the law abiding are required to follow the laws, including registering guns. If they become criminals well then, they aren't required to register their guns:s0092:

So yes, they get their guns illegally, by and far most commonly through other criminals, be they stolen guns, or straw purchases or smuggled across the borders... all of which are already against the law

Oh yeah, Haynes v. United States made my jaw drop the first time I read it. Mental gymnastics at it's finest!

I think the argument the people who posit this are going for is that taking guns away from law abiding citizens reduces the amount of guns available for criminals to steal. Even if that line of reasoning is true (which I doubt) I still don't see why punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is an acceptable solution.
 
Ask them if they think seatbelts save children lives, and point out that the oft quoted "one out of 5 children killed in automobile accidents were not wearing seatbelts" that it also means 4 out of 5 killed were wearing seatbelts :eek:
 

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors May 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top