Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "UCLA Shooter Killed Wife Before Attack" video.

Australia is a poor example. Also gun murders have been dropping in the US for nearly 20 years.
1
What is ironic is that MN has a waiting period
1
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436142/ucla-shooting-gun-controllers-need-say-more-specifically-what-they-want-do
1
And TYT is unbiased? It brought up a great question, what is the NRA supposed to do? Please explain. And what gun laws do you want? What action do you want the government to take? That is what the National Review article asked. Also, gun murders have been dropping for 20 years. I really don't see a problem. But of course TYT won't tell you that because they are clearly an unbiased source.
1
"Way to be specific and grammatically correct, friend." Says the person that just wants the government to take actions. What actions? I know a great way to reduce all crime. We can allow the government to randomly search our homes to see if we are doing anything illegal. That would have stopped the movie theater shooting. Is that what you want?
1
There have been plenty of potential shootings stopped by gun owners. No one hears about it because it isn't exciting news.
1
The problem with what you are saying is that you can't measure something that is unmeasurable. We can't say if a mass shooting would have happened when a potential one was stopped. It had potential but it was stopped. So you can't find statistics but only stories that are boring and bring in zero viewers. The US has very little shootings if you remove gang related violence. The number was 4 last year. Australia has problems as well.
1
The problem is not guns, the problem is crime. In the US guns have been increasing and crime has been dropping. Also, gun ownership is a right. We can't just take away rights for our "safety". I have said that a great way to lower crime is do away with the 4th amendment and allow the government to randomly search people's homes. That would have stopped the movie theater shooting in Colorado. But people are not for that. To me guns are used as a smoke screen to mask a more complicated problem people don't want to deal with and that is crime. "But having seen the gun-nuts and NRA reactions to your weekly Mass-shootings, and their inability to have a calm and rational conversation about steps to take to help prevent these massacres from happening again (or at least not at this insane frequency), I resign to the fact that the US has lost the plot. " One, we don't have mass shootings weekly. Next, when the other side basically lies to push their propaganda it is hard for the NRA and "gun nuts" to act rationally. I try but it is hard. One example is how gun control advocates combine suicides with gun deaths. Another is in this video here. Cenk wants a waiting period when one already exists in MN. Gun control advocates can't even get basic facts right. We can't get into opinions until we get facts right. The issue is not as clear as it just being about guns.
1
The gun show loophole is a myth. And what is a "reasonable restriction"? That is very vague and can be interpreted in so many ways.
1
"When 100% of gun sales happen from licensed sellers who run background checks on customers, then it will be a myth. Until then, no." The vast majority of them are license dealers. Less than 5% of guns bought at a gun show were done without a background check. So for a criminal that leaves them in having a less than 5% chance of finding that one guy who is selling without requiring a background check. Around 40% of criminals obtained their guns illegally. So yes, the gun show loophole is a myth. "for hunting in a responsible manner, one does not need high capacity magazines, or armor piercing rounds." The intent of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny. Also I know people who love to shoot fully automatics for fun. Just like people hunt for fun even though we grocery stores. Or people play guitar for fun, or watch porn, or smoke weed. Most gun deaths involve hand guns anyway.
1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/ There is one on the gun show loophole myth. Most gun transfer that don't involve background checks are private sales. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows It is from the CATO institute which is bias to the right, but it says were it gets their numbers from. While it doesn't cite them it does say which source, so it does require more digging. The issue is that so many people scream "gun show loophole!" without knowing what really goes on in gun shows. They are also the same people who give zero numbers or facts but then demand them when someone makes a rebuttal. You have to also realize that typically they are people who are so anti-gun that they have never been around guns at all. Most criminals obtained their guns illegally. "You're assuming gun buyers operate with zero information, and that word of mouth is not a thing that exists. Those would be bad assumptions to make." As I said around 40% of criminals got their guns illegally. This "word of mouth" is a stretch. At that case you have something gang related and illegal activities is going on to begin with. "The 2nd Amendment has not prevented tyranny." 100% not true. There is a reason why it was placed 2nd in all of the amendments, even before property rights (5th amendment). During the time it was written the colonies were at war with the government. " But, the sensible restriction for that purpose is for gun ranges to rent out such weapons so people can shoot for fun on the range, and then lock them up in a secure vault afterwards." Who runs the secure vaults? Also you have to consider that in places like Nevada where there is so much open ground it is more fun to shoot out there then in a range. Also, it is really hard to own a fully auto with restrictions anyway, and it still won't solve the problem with murders being done mainly by handguns.
1
Even at that gun murders have been dropping for 20 years, that was even after the removal of the assault weapons ban.
1
"Where?" I gave you data to show that criminals, as in those with records, are not buying guns at gun shows. "When I make quantifiable claims, you could and should ask for quantifiable evidence. I am not exempt." I agree, how will background checks lower gun crime? That requires numbers. As of right now you are simply giving talking points. Background checks exist so it shouldn't be too hard. Or it could be that you are just making things up. "I have to ask again: define background checks as used these 95% you claimed." Let us start with you, what background checks do you want? Background checks from that number are FBI background checks. Ever been through an FBI check? It brings up something as small as a DUI. But what are you looking for? "It can be reduced by making gun registration mandatory, and the private sale of guns illegal. Again, only licensed sellers should be able to sell weapons. So that they can do background checks. Because not all who buy guns should be able to easily do so." A gun register means the government can track guns easier, something you don't want. Before you think that is not going to happen SB 5737 was passed in Washington in 2013 which allowed just that. I was later retracted and changed. But the idea of the government randomly searching people's homes who own guns is not out of the norm. But I bet you will support that considering it could lower crime. You know what else will lower crime? Allowing the government to randomly search people's homes. Doing so would have stopped Holmes from shooting up that theater and almost blowing up his apartment. Jaycee Lee Dugard would have been found earlier and not 18 years later. Do you support that? Do you support the government randomly searching people's homes? Please answer that question. Also, background checks still exist. If you are a felon you can't own a gun. Beyond that who else should not own guns in your opinion? "Still irrelevant." No it isn't. Lack of experience will make people scared of guns despite how safe they are. "So, anything short of systematic mass murder carried out by the government against its own populace, guns are useless against tyranny. Agreed. When do you expect that to happen?" Guns are not useless in tyranny. What happened after the Boston Massacre? A war. The colonies won. We try to take peaceful routes to settle disputes, but violence should be an option, a last resort but an option. "Nope. It's pretty relevant considering the power and capacity of modern arms, and the modern political environment we live in." I will link you to a video on that. There were 'assault weapons" during that time. Also, do you support changing freedom of speech because of the internet? Please answer that as well. "It's something that is fun and that people would like to do, which has no practical purpose, and is potentially incredibly dangerous to yourself and others. Very comparable." There are a lot of things that are impractical. Having sex with numerous people is impractical and can lead to STDs, do you want to regulate that as well? Make this country safe by banning anything that you deem to be unsafe? We can all just live in a rubber room. In the end gun ownership is a right, so it isn't comparable. 1. Banning full autos and rifles won't lower gun crimes, that is the point. 2. 100 round drums are notorious for jamming up, that is why the military does not use it. In the movie theater shooting it jammed up on him actually leading to potentially less deaths. Magazines are quick and easy to reload which is why magazine limits don't work. This is especially true if the shooter is the only one with a gun. Ex: VaTech shooter. 3. Ok, what? The US does not have a mass shooting everyday. If you remove gangs and drug related shootings, which are isolated, then it comes down to 4. Even with those shootings it still isn't everyday. Other countries do have light gun laws and other countries do have crime. This is not a gun problem but a crime problem. Even at that the US crime problem exists in isolated areas such as the inner city.
1
Cenk when full stupid here. That National Review article broke down the issue very well. What does Cenk want to do? Ban all guns? Crying for more gun laws is not the solution, you have to be specific and show who these laws would have stopped these shootings, in particular the one being talked about now. Cenk, not surprisingly, gets a few facts wrong. One, the "cool down" period already exists in MN and have been shown not to work. People who commit murders and suicides have an on going problem, not a spontaneous one. Next, a permit is required to carry a handgun in MN which this guy did not have. He did not have one thus he broke that law just like he broke the law of bringing a gun on a gun free zone. When talking about gun deaths Cenk brings up suicides. Meanwhile murders by guns have been dropping for around 20 years. But of course Cenk won't bring that up because it won't fit his agenda. He has to lump in suicides to raise the numbers. I am all for having a serious discussion about guns and crime in general in this country. In order to do so you have to get basic facts straight.
1
Steven Crowder did a video debunking what Cenk said. Crowder came out on top by actually giving resources where all Cenk said was "look it up".
1
Cenk is wrong. Steven Crowder, a "comedian", called out Cenk and used actual facts. And considering how murders with guns have been dropping despite the number of guns in the US increasing, I would say we are very safe with guns.
1