Guns. I'm just throwing my point of view out there. If I'm wrong then explain it to me.

[MaryL]

Ah, yes, capitalism uber ales. Amorality wins again. Yay! Profits are all we are worried about, not reason or necessity.

What's wrong with profits? It's how companies keep providing good products. I like choices.

Whats wrong with profits? When it feeds into the darker angels of our mercies, then we need to re examine our greed and profit margin and see if there is room for a soul.

 

[Cellblock2429]

one other thing you are forgetting is that a firearm is a very simple device....any jimmyearl with some metal, a bench lathe and 12 ton press and some know how, can manufacture a pretty decent quality firarm in his garage...google "khyber pass copy"

/---- Don't forget 3D printers can turn out working guns too.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

one other thing you are forgetting is that a firearm is a very simple device....any jimmyearl with some metal, a bench lathe and 12 ton press and some know how, can manufacture a pretty decent quality firarm in his garage...google "khyber pass copy"

/---- Don't forget 3D printers can turn out working guns too.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

true...but basic machine tools are cheaper and more readily available.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Have you bothered to find out the "why"?

People turn to crime because they are desperate and lack better options.

/----- That doesn't explain organized crime who are filthy rich and also have legitimate businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[12icer]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

Nope Wrong again!!, Gun crime is higher than reported in the UK because it is NOT reported because it is a political ploy. Many gun crimes are reported ONLY as a crime with a weapon, Not as a crime with a particular weapon. It IS the classic ONLY THE CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS situation. Some districts even ADMIT the FACT.

 

[Confounding]

That doesn't explain organized crime who are filthy rich and also have legitimate businesses.

If I could still edit that post I would make it "Most people turn to crime because they are desperate and feel that they have few options."

 

[westwall]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

Wrong. As evidenced by the fact that Norway and Paris have had two mass shootings that killed more people than all of our mass shootings combined over the last 20 years, the simple fact is that we have a more violent population than exists in Europe. We have black and Hispanic gangs here that don't exist in Europe. However, as Europe welcomes in the violent middle easterners, their violent crime rates have been skyrocketing.

It is not the tool, it is the person using the tool that determines how it will be used.

I've been in this discussion so many times now that no matter what reply I offer, I know exactly what I will get back as a response. No sense, is there?
Open your eyes, Westwall, and stop making excuses. Pogo has a point that not just gun laws will "fix" the problem; a many pronged approach is necessary to stop the gun violence in this country. It is not just in the inner cities, but even if it were, is it any less important because of that? Can we just dismiss it as "not counting?"
Anyway, don't bother replying. I've heard it before, as you've heard this before. It's all part of the liturgy, the communal responses.

No, he really doesn't. Facts are facts oldlady. You can pass every gun law you want and the evil people will always be able to get them. The only people who suffer because of that fact are the innocent. Handguns are illegal for the most part in the UK and yet handgun violence is increasing at a very high rate? Why? If laws are all that is needed, and the UK IS an island so the guns aren't exactly easy to just waltz in with, so riddle me how gun violence is increasing? The same is true for Australia, and every other country that has outlawed the private ownership of weapons.

That is a simple fact. The other simple fact is the violent people in Europe were almost all killed over the course of not one, but two World Wars. Thus, while violence hasn't been bred out intentionally, it HAS happened. The same is true in Japan. The violent people were mostly all killed during the last World War. The opposite is true here in the States. We have a huge population of people who resort to violence as a first response. It is natural for them.

Chicago is the murder capital of the world! Guess what. Guns are outlawed to all but the wealthy, but with 150,000 KNOWN gang members guess how effective those laws are? Correct. They're not.

It is not the gun that is the problem as we have over 300 MILLION guns in this country and a fantastically small percentage of them are used to commit murders. That is a fact. Put another way, you are far more likely to die at the hands of a doctor, of whom there are 800,000 or so in the USA, through medical mistake, malpractice, or negligence (to the tune of 120,000 Americans EVERY year), than you are to dying from a gun. The overwhelming majority of which are due to suicide. And for those who wish to claim that suicide deaths will decrease that is a farce. Japan has virtually no gun ownership for the people but their suicide rate is much higher than in the US.

The facts do not support pogo, or you.

 

[12icer]

Facts are something liberals do not have a working relationship or knowledge of. They have only fantasy, conjecture, labeling to dehumanize, and ego driven pseudointellectualisim. The fact is The second Amendment has been determined by the Supreme court to be an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, A GUN cant shoot anyone. There are many more people killed with cars than guns, and there is no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to DRIVE. If a person kills someone in a car accident and the person killed is at fault, the person who lived is not arrested. If a person involved in a fatal accident that IS at fault, is not drunk, Driving too fast or blatantly breaking some other law They don't get arrested. If a person uses a gun to protect himself from a violent criminal he is going to be arrested ANYWAY even if he had no choice other than to die himself. That is because of liberal dogshit, Too bad it is not ALWAYS their family who die, and are violently attacked because of their complete stupidity. The rest of us would not have all of these social problems if not for liberals. CRY SOME as you look in your mirror liberal because it is YOU that cause the problems. You support and therefore ARE the murderers, rapist, predators, thugs, and also the socialist extortionist/intimidators. HAVE a nice day now yall heah HAHAAAHAHAHAHAAA.

 

[2aguy]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

No..terrorists in England are following tradition and popularity as the isis nuts have used knives...and they use trucks because the guy in Nic, France killed 89 people and injured 400... they are trying to duplicate that number and guns won't get them there.......

Gun crime in London is up 42%.... so criminals are getting guns...more and more guns...it isn't that there laws work..it is that their criminals don't commit murder with them.......but that is changing......violent crime is up 70-90% in major British cities...so no.....disarming normal, law abiding people doesn't lower the crime rate...

ANd how do you explain our gun murder rate going down49%...our gun crime rate down 75%...and our violent crime rate down 72%.....as more Americans bought guns...from200 million in the 1990s to close to 600 million in 2017 and from 4.7 million people carrying guns to 15.7 million people carrying guns....

Those stats show you are completely wrong..it isn't gun laws...it is the nature of criminals, and armed good guys....

 

[2aguy]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

Yeah, because increasing the prison population has worked so well. Wait, no it hasn't. It's expensive, and it is less effective in reducing repeat offenders. In fact, it just about guarantees that there will be repeat offenders.

But you won't listen, and you won't think, so you won't learn. You can lead them to water, but if you don't hold their hand they'll fall in and drown.

The prison population of violent criminals is getting released by democrats all over the country...California is passing a law that will release violent gun offenders and gun traffickers early...and these democrat cities let violent gun criminals out in under two years

So no.
...our problem is not too many people in jail...it is keeping violent gun criminals in jail democrats just keep refusing to do it....

 

[2aguy]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

Wrong. As evidenced by the fact that Norway and Paris have had two mass shootings that killed more people than all of our mass shootings combined over the last 20 years, the simple fact is that we have a more violent population than exists in Europe. We have black and Hispanic gangs here that don't exist in Europe. However, as Europe welcomes in the violent middle easterners, their violent crime rates have been skyrocketing.

It is not the tool, it is the person using the tool that determines how it will be used.

I've been in this discussion so many times now that no matter what reply I offer, I know exactly what I will get back as a response. No sense, is there?
Open your eyes, Westwall, and stop making excuses. Pogo has a point that not just gun laws will "fix" the problem; a many pronged approach is necessary to stop the gun violence in this country. It is not just in the inner cities, but even if it were, is it any less important because of that? Can we just dismiss it as "not counting?"
Anyway, don't bother replying. I've heard it before, as you've heard this before. It's all part of the liturgy, the communal responses.

It is almost exclusively in the cities.....there is a study that looked st all murders in the United States..they were confined to tiny areas in our major cities........so no...it isn't all around....that is just not true...

 

[2aguy]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so.

On the supply side, drugs and guns are similar. In terms of use, however, they are dissimilar in that the direct consequences of drug abuse are suffered only by the drug using buyer whereas the direct consequences of gun abuse most often adversely affect someone other than the gun using buyer. (The exception to the latter being when the buyer/owner mistakenly shoots themselves.) Another aspect of the usage difference is that guns continue to exist after being used whereas drugs do not.

Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it.

There will most certainly be supply regardless of what the law says. The government assigning illicitness to the object curtails demand, but it won't eliminate demand. The economics of it are that the government making an item illegal results in a downward shift in supply and a correlated reduction in the quantity demanded and a higher "new" equilibrium price.

(Do not confuse a "shift" in supply or demand with a "change in quantity demanded/supplied. The image above depicts a downward shift in supply and the resulting change in quantity demanded.)
​

When supply shifts and latent (rather than effective) demand remains the same the result is still a change in the quantity demanded. That is because economically speaking, "demand" means (unless otherwise indicated) means "effective demand," which is synonymous with "goods/services actually sought and purchased." Similarly, "supply" means "goods actually produced and sold to demanders." Latent demand refers to goods/services consumers may intend to buy, but that they haven't bought or don't indeed buy, regardless of why they don't demand the good/service.

You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns.

Nobody with any sense thinks the supply and demand will be stopped; paring of it is the goal. Therein lies the problem with the outcome-oriented gun-rights arguments I've seen; they're but sophistry predicated speciously on the notion that would-be implementers of "this or that" gun-control policy expect to stop rather than reduce the incidence of gun unlawful deaths and unintended gun-related injuries.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control.

There's nothing intelligent about focusing on the legality or illegality of guns; the focus needs to be on human behavior. The behavior that must be managed is that of gun owners, gun buyers and gun users, recognizing that the three states of being need not exist in one individual. Gun owners need to be spurred to behave such that they maintain sufficient control over their own gun that it is cannot be readily obtained [1] by unauthorized would-be users and/or thieves.

Economics informs us that by making guns illegal, fewer guns will be purchased. Fewer guns purchased will surely do something to interdict gun acquisitions, thus their unlawful use, by some people, namely they who will not steal a gun from someone whom they know has one and who has no other way to obtain one. I don't know how many people that will be, but it's sure to be more than zero people. (It is not logical to presume that a lawbreaker of "type A" is or will necessarily be also a lawbreaker of "type B." A thief is not necessarily a murderer. A pimp is not necessarily a murderer or thief.)

A plausible example of such an individual is the guy who recently shot Congressman Scalise and others; there's no reason to think that man would have unlawfully obtained a gun and then hauled his ass hundreds of miles to VA to shoot people. Another example is myself. If guns were illegal as are certain drugs, I'd have no idea where to get one and I'm not going to put myself at risk asking around to find out how to obtain one illegally. It's not as though illegal gun sellers are standing on the street corner as are drug sellers. That said, were guns illegal, there's no denying that some ne'er do wells would nonetheless find a way to get a gun, but some of them will have no way to do so; thus they will not get one and unlawfully use it.

In looking at behavior and the gun use process, one observes the following:

1. Producers make guns and sell them to lawful retailers. Finished goods not sent to retailers are the property of the producer. Finished goods in transit to a retailer may be the property of the retailer or the producer, depending on the terms of the sales contract.
2. Lawful retailers sell them to lawful buyers.
3. Lawful buyers either:
   • Lawfully use and adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but fail to adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but unlawfully sell them, or
   • Unlawfully use their guns.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [2] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

No reason to think he would have broken the law? Are you high? He had already broken MULTIPLE laws. He was already known to be a violent asshole who was not a felon only because he had help from friends in high places. Yet again GOVERNMENT FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB because he was a pal.

Your logic is faulty.

Were you to duly consider the nature of the specific solution proposal I made, you'd discover that whether I'm correct or not about Hodgkinson has no bearing on the proposal's potential efficacy. Furthermore, under the proposal I made, even if by dint of "whatever"authorities could not obtain a conviction of Hodgkinson on counts of shooting others, he would, provided he used a gun he lawfully purchased, be convicted for its being used to harm others. Thus, if liberals are to take exception with it, their rational basis for doing so must be on the legal concept of mens rea. Any such argument would necessarily be normative not positive.

You haven't studied mass shooters, have you? They are rarely arrested and like the baseball shooter, they plan on being killed by police or they commit suicide...so the normal rules of arrest and jail do not apply....the Sandy Hook shooter stopped shooting and committed suicide when he heard the police sirens coming in....

You don't understand the issue....

 

[Pogo]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

"Government" doesn't shoot itself into a school and start picking off targets, Dippy. "Government" doesn't fly through the air penetrating flesh and bone and cartilage, Dumbass. "Government" doesn't provide the instant visual-sensory gratification of carnage and flying globules of blood and helpless victims screaming for their lives that our media and our general values relentlessly portray as power for the powerless, Freako. That's the action. That's the instrument. You want to ooze in here and derail the thread with a load of bullshit about what ISN'T happening, which was never the point.

The poster declared the absence of a situation that clearly cannot be denied its existence, and I picked three random examples that shove that delusion back into the rabbit hole of self-delusion whence it came. That was the point there Evelyn Wood. As I said, go learn to READ.

I could have listed a ton more but the point was made. What "government" does or doesn't do has jack squat to do with the fact that IT EXISTS. All you're doing is trolling a thread to deflect it from a direction you can't handle.

Yep, the one common denominator in all of these active shooter situations is a massive government failure to do their jobs.

Here again Stupid --- a government 'failing to do its job' --- or even the absence of any government at all ---- doesn't start shooting people. SHOOTERS do that. Quit shirking responsibility on their behalf.

 

[westwall]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

"Government" doesn't shoot itself into a school and start picking off targets, Dippy. "Government" doesn't fly through the air penetrating flesh and bone and cartilage, Dumbass. "Government" doesn't provide the instant visual-sensory gratification of carnage and flying globules of blood and helpless victims screaming for their lives that our media and our general values relentlessly portray as power for the powerless, Freako. That's the action. That's the instrument. You want to ooze in here and derail the thread with a load of bullshit about what ISN'T happening, which was never the point.

The poster declared the absence of a situation that clearly cannot be denied its existence, and I picked three random examples that shove that delusion back into the rabbit hole of self-delusion whence it came. That was the point there Evelyn Wood. As I said, go learn to READ.

I could have listed a ton more but the point was made. What "government" does or doesn't do has jack squat to do with the fact that IT EXISTS. All you're doing is trolling a thread to deflect it from a direction you can't handle.

Tell that to all of the millions that were murdered by progressive style governments after they were able to disarm the populations of those countries. You are historically, and factually wrong on all counts.

 

[2aguy]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

You don't remember this...and won't realize why you have no point.......

Criminals will get guns.....all they need is money....in the 1990s a guy from China was a huge donor to the clinton's.....he brought in 2,000 illegal AK-47s that he was going to sell to criminal gangs.....but he got caught....so no matter what you think...criminals are going to get illegal guns....

China Arms Dealer Guest Of Clinton

Then, in May, representatives of Wang's Poly Technologies were charged in a sting operation in which 2,000 Chinese-made assault rifles were shipped into the United States. The cache contained the largest number of fully operational automatic weapons ever taken by U.S. law enforcement officers.

Fourteen people were indicted in San Francisco for allegedly selling AK-47s to undercover agents posing as Miami mobsters. Those guns and 4,000 ammunition magazines had an estimated street value of $4 million, federal officials said.

The seizure was the culmination of a 16-month investigation into the executive ranks of Poly Technologies and another Chinese company, China Northern Industrial Corp. The top ranks of both companies are filled with former generals and relatives of senior Communist Party leaders, prosecutors said.

 

[Flash]

I' It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal

That is kinda like what our Founding Fathers had in mine, know what I mean?

 

[2aguy]

Gun laws obviously are not the answer but part of the answer is simple.

Chicago has increased the penalty for selling a gun in Chicago. As if that has worked before.

We have not eliminated gun violence in Florida but we have cut gun crime drastically without 10-20-Life law. Be in possession of a gun in the commission of a crime and the minimum sentence is 10 years. Fire the gun and injure no one it is a 20 year minimum sentence. Carry a gun during the commission of a crime, fire the gun and hit someone, not necessarily kill them and it is a life sentence. That doesn't punish law abiding citizens but it does take criminals off the street for a long time if they carry or injure someone with a gun.

The other is to revise our welfare laws.

Prior to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Great Society, the black family unit was among our strongest. Now it is one of the weakest.

Other than money, what do you think is the primary difference between a youngster growing up in Chicago below the poverty level or well above the poverty level?

Exactly, laws that actually target criminals who use guns lower the gun crime rate...laws that increase paperwork and increase legal peril for normal, law abiding people do nothing to stop gun crime...

 

[2aguy]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

Ah, yes, capitalism uber ales. Amorality wins again. Yay! Profits are all we are worried about, not reason or necessity.

Profits mean you have to make your customers happy.....a happy customer pays you, you get rewarded for helping people...under socialism, the government clock puncher doesn't give a rats ass if you get served or not as long as they get their breaks and leave work on time.....

You have it ass backwards....

 

[2aguy]

Ah, yes, capitalism uber ales. Amorality wins again. Yay! Profits are all we are worried about, not reason or necessity.

What's wrong with profits? It's how companies keep providing good products. I like choices.

Whats wrong with profits? When it feeds into the darker angels of our mercies, then we need to re examine our greed and profit margin and see if there is room for a soul.

The only way you make a profit is by actually making your customers happy. If you don't, they go somewhere else....in socialist economies, you are just a hassle, and a burden......there is no reason to make you happy, they get paid regardless of your satisfaction...the private business does not....

 

[MaryL]

Excuse the hell out of me. I voted for the republican party, sorry kids. I have seen the flip side of this, and guns people scare the holy hell out of me. And thugs with guns scare me even more, and this pro gun stuff just feeds into those bad actors in the shadows, the people you fear the most. If we just got rid off the damned things, most of you wouldn't be so damned paranoid about protecting yourselves, either.