Cory Booker: “If I Had The Power” To Ban Guns “I Would”

[Geaux4it]

There are 195 nations in the world.
194 do not have a 2nd Amendment.

Feel free to hop on a plane.

Cory Booker: ‘If I Had the Power’ to Ban Guns ‘I Would’

keyword..... 'If'..........

What an Obama dumb cluck

-Geaux

 

[Soupnazi630]

Well yes they did and it does not matter how often they happen they happen every where.

And again the government is far more dangerous than someone with a rifle hence our second amendment

Not at all.

The problem with the "we needs our guns to fights us the government" philosophy is that it is truly stupid. The government has tanks, at the end of the day, and if they really think you are enough of a pain in the ass to need to kill, they aren't going to have a very hard time doing it. Just ask David Koresh.

A second Amendment doesn't keep rogue cops from shooting black kids in the ghetto.

So the question is, is your imaginary fear a good enough reason to put up with 33,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes and 270 BILLION in economic losses every year. The ironic thing is as much as you guys whine about the police state, we live in a world of security doors, militarized police forces and closed circuit TV because you guys have made the streets so dangerous with the proliferation of guns.

and speaking of crazy.

Will drugs always be available?

Will guns always be available?

.

You avoided the question..People would take you more seriously as the "Intellectual" you claim to be if you actually put an effort into these things.

If the drug laws are so useless, then why don't you advocate repealing them and expunging the records of everyone convicted of a crime related to them?

The answer is, you simply don't want a world where someone can buy heroin or cocaine as easily as you can buy a pack of smokes, and frankly, neither do I. Even though most drug use is harmless, the small percentage of those who cause harm mean that it's something to be discouraged.

Kind of the same thing with guns. The amount of damage done by the small percentage of gun nuts and criminals is something we really ought to be discouraging.

Wrong.

Tanks can be defeated and there are not enough of them to deal with an armed population

You demonstrate a typical ignorance of military history and how a population must be disarmed

And yes personal freedom is worth the risk and that is what this nation is about

Most agree and if you do not like it leave

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"....can't buy guns because they aren't available."


Kind of like drug laws?????


That view of reality is almost....almost....as absurd as you are.

Funny, I hear you gun nuts use that (poor) analogy, but none of you ever advocate repealing the drug laws.

Probably because you don't want to live next door to a meth-lab or a crack house.

By your logic, we might as well repeal the murder statues, as we still have 16,000 murders every year.

So let's look at those drug laws. What do drug laws actually accomplish?

They keep law abiding citizens from getting involved with recreational narcotics. The criminals who want the drugs somehow find a way to get them.

So what we have today are drug free law abiding citizens, and a criminal element that has access to those drugs.

What would happen if we disarmed the citizenry? The same thing. The bad guys would still have the guns but the innocent would be disarmed because they obey our laws.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The President of the US gets security briefings every day. They are all loaded with potential harms to the US. However until they have evidence of something that is "going" to happen, all they can do is monitor those threats as closely as they can. They can't act on every suspicion or information they get because most of it is bogus.

If it was so harmless, then why did Bush fight for years to keep it secret?

Point was, Bush was told Bin Laden was going to use airplanes to attack us and said, "Well, you've covered your ass" and went fishing.

Come to think of it, that kind of describes his entire presidency... people told him things were problems, but he lacked the brain power to get his head around them.

Compared to Trump, who actually creates problems, other people jump through hoops to prevent them from causing disaster, and then he takes the credit.

Right, so Bush got this information that CBS never knew about, only you did, and he institutes all these preventative measures. Now 911 never happens, but what do you suppose the MSM would have said about it?

So the country is pissed off at Bush for making their ability to get on a plane take hours instead of minutes for no reason as far as the public is concerned. The MSM would have promoted Bush lied, Bush was trying to induce panic, there was no real terrorist threat, it never happened and no evidence it was going to.

But Oh! Bush had a secret meeting that he didn't allow the public to know about, as if Democrat Presidents never did the same. Democrats tell the public everything, right Joe?

The FACT is nobody in our intelligence agencies knew about 911. A possible terrorist attack? Certainly. After all, the first WTC attack happened under Clinton. However the government had NO knowledge of any exact plans or dates. But even if they did, the public would have never supported any major effort to stop it. Remember, your mind is controlled by the media like all leftists. Whatever they say, you believe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You need to stop buying into Trump's propaganda. The economy is really not much better than it was 3 years ago, and it looks like it's finally coming to a stop.

Only a leftist would consider statistics propaganda. Sorry, but those statistics are facts, and I understand how much leftists hate facts.

Actually, we are looking at identical circumstances to 2001- High inventories with declining sales. Layoffs are going to follow. I know I'm seeing more and more customers who are the subject of layoffs (as opposed to a year ago, where more of them were trying to get better jobs.) This will be a very sudden crash, just like 2001 was

And I'm seeing quite the opposite. While you sit home claiming to write resumes, I'm actually out in industry all day long. Customers always looking for more workers. People working overtime and six days a week. Our company is having trouble trying to keep up with the deliveries. Drivers I speak to that work for other companies are telling me the same.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong.

Tanks can be defeated and there are not enough of them to deal with an armed population

You demonstrate a typical ignorance of military history and how a population must be disarmed

And yes personal freedom is worth the risk and that is what this nation is about

Most agree and if you do not like it leave

Sorry, man, History degree from UIC and 11 years in the Army... I probably have a better grasp on military history than you do.

Most people think we need sensible gun control. If you don't like it, leave.

 

[JoeB131]

Only a leftist would consider statistics propaganda. Sorry, but those statistics are facts, and I understand how much leftists hate facts.

Mendacity comes in three forms... lies, damned lies and statistics - Benjamin Disreali (maybe)

The funny thing is you guys denied these same statistics meant anything when the black guy was president. If unemployment was at 4.8%, you pointed to the Labor Participation rate.

And I'm seeing quite the opposite. While you sit home claiming to write resumes, I'm actually out in industry all day long. Customers always looking for more workers. People working overtime and six days a week. Our company is having trouble trying to keep up with the deliveries. Drivers I speak to that work for other companies are telling me the same.

But yet no one has offered you a job that pays health insurance, and your boss, despite doing so well and with a lot of the ACA gutted, is not offering you health insurance.

When you get health insurance THEN I will take you seriously that the economy is better.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.

Tanks can be defeated and there are not enough of them to deal with an armed population

You demonstrate a typical ignorance of military history and how a population must be disarmed

And yes personal freedom is worth the risk and that is what this nation is about

Most agree and if you do not like it leave

Sorry, man, History degree from UIC and 11 years in the Army... I probably have a better grasp on military history than you do.

Most people think we need sensible gun control. If you don't like it, leave.

Most Americans don't know what gun laws we already have, you moron. If they were asked real questions, followed by actual information on current gun laws and the complete stupidity of everything you want to do, those number would be different...

How about asking those same people if they think Elvis is still alive....you moron.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

Tanks can be defeated and there are not enough of them to deal with an armed population

You demonstrate a typical ignorance of military history and how a population must be disarmed

And yes personal freedom is worth the risk and that is what this nation is about

Most agree and if you do not like it leave

Sorry, man, History degree from UIC and 11 years in the Army... I probably have a better grasp on military history than you do.

Most people think we need sensible gun control. If you don't like it, leave.

You are massively ignorant about military history despite your stolen valor and self aggrandizing claims

There is no sensible gun control laws and that graph does not reflect your claims

 

[JoeB131]

Right, so Bush got this information that CBS never knew about, only you did, and he institutes all these preventative measures. Now 911 never happens, but what do you suppose the MSM would have said about it?

So the country is pissed off at Bush for making their ability to get on a plane take hours instead of minutes for no reason as far as the public is concerned. The MSM would have promoted Bush lied, Bush was trying to induce panic, there was no real terrorist threat, it never happened and no evidence it was going to.

Except there was a terrorist threat, it did happen... and Bush ignored the warnings

The FACT is nobody in our intelligence agencies knew about 911. A possible terrorist attack? Certainly. After all, the first WTC attack happened under Clinton. However the government had NO knowledge of any exact plans or dates. But even if they did, the public would have never supported any major effort to stop it. Remember, your mind is controlled by the media like all leftists. Whatever they say, you believe.

So Bush was justified in doing... nothing, because the media would make fun of him if he did... This is what you are arguing?

 

[2aguy]

Well yes they did and it does not matter how often they happen they happen every where.

And again the government is far more dangerous than someone with a rifle hence our second amendment

Not at all.

The problem with the "we needs our guns to fights us the government" philosophy is that it is truly stupid. The government has tanks, at the end of the day, and if they really think you are enough of a pain in the ass to need to kill, they aren't going to have a very hard time doing it. Just ask David Koresh.

A second Amendment doesn't keep rogue cops from shooting black kids in the ghetto.

So the question is, is your imaginary fear a good enough reason to put up with 33,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes and 270 BILLION in economic losses every year. The ironic thing is as much as you guys whine about the police state, we live in a world of security doors, militarized police forces and closed circuit TV because you guys have made the streets so dangerous with the proliferation of guns.

and speaking of crazy.

Will drugs always be available?

Will guns always be available?

.

You avoided the question..People would take you more seriously as the "Intellectual" you claim to be if you actually put an effort into these things.

If the drug laws are so useless, then why don't you advocate repealing them and expunging the records of everyone convicted of a crime related to them?

The answer is, you simply don't want a world where someone can buy heroin or cocaine as easily as you can buy a pack of smokes, and frankly, neither do I. Even though most drug use is harmless, the small percentage of those who cause harm mean that it's something to be discouraged.

Kind of the same thing with guns. The amount of damage done by the small percentage of gun nuts and criminals is something we really ought to be discouraging.

Guns save more lives and money that you will admit..........Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders ,and save lives....

Lives saved......... and for you, money saved...

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct



in actual shootings pertains in these DGUs, that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.


==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.
----

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

 

[JoeB131]

Most Americans don't know what gun laws we already have, you moron. If they were asked real questions, followed by actual information on current gun laws and the complete stupidity of everything you want to do, those number would be different...

Oh, I agree. If most people knew how lax the gun laws are, those numbers would be much higher in supporting stricter gun laws.

The only time we wonder is when some nut shoots up a school or a nighclub, and we ask "How did this nut get a gun?"

Where you guys scream "Too soon" and "Stop politicizing this tragedy" and my very favorite "Hope and Prayers!"

 

[JoeB131]

Guns save more lives and money that you will admit..........Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders ,and save lives....

Because that number is bullshit and always has been. But if a gun discussion goes on, it always ends with you spooging us with this bullshit.

I'm on vacation this week, I don't have time for this... bother someone who gives a shit

 

[JoeB131]

You are massively ignorant about military history despite your stolen valor and self aggrandizing claims

There is no sensible gun control laws and that graph does not reflect your claims

Sure there are. Most western democracies limit who can own a gun. They have very few gun deaths and mass shootings are rare.

I wouldn't even go as far as Japan (private gun ownership is completely illegal and they have less than 10 gun homicides a year.) You could just go with Germany, where guns are allowed after you've undergone thorough background checks.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You are massively ignorant about military history despite your stolen valor and self aggrandizing claims

There is no sensible gun control laws and that graph does not reflect your claims

Sure there are. Most western democracies limit who can own a gun. They have very few gun deaths and mass shootings are rare.

I wouldn't even go as far as Japan (private gun ownership is completely illegal and they have less than 10 gun homicides a year.) You could just go with Germany, where guns are allowed after you've undergone thorough background checks.

Mass shooting are more common in those nations because the government is the one doing the shooting

 

[2aguy]

Most Americans don't know what gun laws we already have, you moron. If they were asked real questions, followed by actual information on current gun laws and the complete stupidity of everything you want to do, those number would be different...

Oh, I agree. If most people knew how lax the gun laws are, those numbers would be much higher in supporting stricter gun laws.

The only time we wonder is when some nut shoots up a school or a nighclub, and we ask "How did this nut get a gun?"

Where you guys scream "Too soon" and "Stop politicizing this tragedy" and my very favorite "Hope and Prayers!"

The only time we wonder is when some nut shoots up a school or a nighclub, and we ask "How did this nut get a gun?"

So far, he got the gun because the your "god" government, keeps screwing up the background checks and keeps letting known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of prison and out of jail....had your "god" government simply arrested and jailed the Parkland shooter when he committed felonies on school grounds, instead of using obama's Promise Program to let him go to keep their arrest rates down, he wouldn't have passed the current, federally mandated background check.....

Dittos the Pulse shooter, the Texas church Shooter, the South Carolina Shooter...and on and on.......add to those shooters the gang members that the democrat party judges keep letting out of jail...after they are arrested on gun offenses over and over again.....and it isn't gun laws that are the problem...

The problem is democrat politicians who keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail....

You moron....

 

[2aguy]

You are massively ignorant about military history despite your stolen valor and self aggrandizing claims

There is no sensible gun control laws and that graph does not reflect your claims

Sure there are. Most western democracies limit who can own a gun. They have very few gun deaths and mass shootings are rare.

I wouldn't even go as far as Japan (private gun ownership is completely illegal and they have less than 10 gun homicides a year.) You could just go with Germany, where guns are allowed after you've undergone thorough background checks.

You could just go with Germany

Yeah.....Germany disarmed the people they wanted to mass murder..........let's use Germany as an example, you dumb ass..

 

[2aguy]

You are massively ignorant about military history despite your stolen valor and self aggrandizing claims

There is no sensible gun control laws and that graph does not reflect your claims

Sure there are. Most western democracies limit who can own a gun. They have very few gun deaths and mass shootings are rare.

I wouldn't even go as far as Japan (private gun ownership is completely illegal and they have less than 10 gun homicides a year.) You could just go with Germany, where guns are allowed after you've undergone thorough background checks.

We had 12 mass public shootings in 2018, 93 killed.....

Cars killed over 38,000 people.....

Cars are deadlier than guns, you dope.

 

[2aguy]

You are massively ignorant about military history despite your stolen valor and self aggrandizing claims

There is no sensible gun control laws and that graph does not reflect your claims

Sure there are. Most western democracies limit who can own a gun. They have very few gun deaths and mass shootings are rare.

I wouldn't even go as far as Japan (private gun ownership is completely illegal and they have less than 10 gun homicides a year.) You could just go with Germany, where guns are allowed after you've undergone thorough background checks.

Those western democracies are about to run red with blood....their welfare states have reached the point that they can no longer civilize the young males raised by teenage girls, and the immigrants from 3rd world countries are mor than willing to do the killing the Europeans won't do....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So Bush was justified in doing... nothing, because the media would make fun of him if he did... This is what you are arguing?

What part about "Even if they did" are you confused about?