Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[RetiredGySgt]

And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either. That's my point.



Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing. And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land. But none of these are the topic here.


Know who has never shot anyone? People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Show me how guns were not invented for the purpose of making war.

Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."

Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.

No, it's not. It's actually the opposite -- a contrast. "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence. Neither applies to the function of the instrument. Hunting, by contrast, does.

Where's the value judgement then? Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion. It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.

After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass. The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.

You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.

Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.

 

[Pogo]

I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles. People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people. None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades. Could they kill a person? Sure. Why do they not? Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them. Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.

I am not special. There are LITERALLY millions of people like me. Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly. The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions. I have no respect for their ideas.

I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played. That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.

Duh.

Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't not make them implements their respective purposes. However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.

The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.

Once again you're arguing in oppositeland. What you've lain out is the opposite of what we're saying.

Lunacy says that because he has guns that have never shot anyone, that can't be what they're designed for. I gave an example of why that argument is full of shit. Design is design. An instrument is designed for its purpose; shooting people, playing music, grinding coffee, whatever. Not using it for that purpose doesn't change what it's designed to do. What you're illustrating is using the instrument for other purposes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played. That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.

Duh.

Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't not make them implements their respective purposes. However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.

The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.

Once again you're arguing in oppositeland. What you've lain out is the opposite of what we're saying.

Lunacy says that because he has guns that have never shot anyone, that can't be what they're designed for. I gave an example of why that argument is full of shit. Design is design. An instrument is designed for its purpose; shooting people, playing music, grinding coffee, whatever. Not using it for that purpose doesn't change what it's designed to do. What you're illustrating is using the instrument for other purposes.

Civilian firearms are not designed to kill people. In fact in the west one can argue that most military firearms are not designed to kill either. They are designed to incapacitate.

 

[Pogo]

You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."

Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.

No, it's not. It's actually the opposite -- a contrast. "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence. Neither applies to the function of the instrument. Hunting, by contrast, does.

Where's the value judgement then? Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion. It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.

After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass. The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.

You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.

Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.

Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden. Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K? And they posted before you did. Get back in line.

I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested). But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, it's not. It's actually the opposite -- a contrast. "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence. Neither applies to the function of the instrument. Hunting, by contrast, does.

Where's the value judgement then? Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion. It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.

After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass. The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.

You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.

Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.

Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden. Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K? And they posted before you did. Get back in line.

I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested). But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.

Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.

 

[Pogo]

You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.

Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.

Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden. Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K? And they posted before you did. Get back in line.

I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested). But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.

Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.

OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?

This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden. Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K? And they posted before you did. Get back in line.

I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested). But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.

Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.

OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?

This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...

You claimed that firearm crimes had not decreased and that I was full of Bullshit for saying more firearms equals less crime. But then you know that and are trying now to change the subject.

It is simple, you believe we need less firearms in the Country because you claim we have an epidemic of violence.

 

[Pogo]

Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.

OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?

This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...

You claimed that firearm crimes had not decreased and that I was full of Bullshit for saying more firearms equals less crime. But then you know that and are trying now to change the subject.

It is simple, you believe we need less firearms in the Country because you claim we have an epidemic of violence.

Bzzt.

Again, here's the question. You posted:

... this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.

-- So what did I say about laws? And to include this last post, where did I say we need "less [sic] firearms"? (it would be fewer, not 'less')

C'mon, I don't have all night.

Btw I claimed nothing about "firearm crimes".

 

[Spoonman]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?

This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...

You claimed that firearm crimes had not decreased and that I was full of Bullshit for saying more firearms equals less crime. But then you know that and are trying now to change the subject.

It is simple, you believe we need less firearms in the Country because you claim we have an epidemic of violence.

Bzzt.

Again, here's the question. You posted:

... this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.

-- So what did I say about laws? And to include this last post, where did I say we need "less [sic] firearms"? (it would be fewer, not 'less')

C'mon, I don't have all night.

Btw I claimed nothing about "firearm crimes".

So clear it up, tell us right now you do not think reducing the number of firearms available to all citizens is what is needed. Tell us that you were wrong when you stated violence has not gone down as firearms ownership went up.

Be specific. Tell us your open rants AGAINST firearms are just a misunderstanding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That too. False comparison.

But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.

We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire). Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem. Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.

Now we did take that approach to drunk driving. It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be. Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the public.

If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

You would have us believe firearm violence has been reduced?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson. I didn't say it eliminated these things. That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic. That's the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.

Your words. You stated firearm violence has not gone down by telling me I was full of bullshit saying it had gone down.

Further you made the claim that there was an epidemic and that it was out of control. The facts are clear, what you claimed is simply not the facts.

 

[Pogo]

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

You would have us believe firearm violence has been reduced?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson. I didn't say it eliminated these things. That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic. That's the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.

Your words. You stated firearm violence has not gone down by telling me I was full of bullshit saying it had gone down.

Further you made the claim that there was an epidemic and that it was out of control. The facts are clear, what you claimed is simply not the facts.

And you said "firearm crimes". Which I guess is what your link went to.
Violence; crimes. Know the difference.

Here's a timeline you can scroll.

And here's a report on just the last year and a half:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXAF_9KUjgo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXAF_9KUjgo[/ame]

Doesn't look like much of a "decline" to me.

 

[Spoonman]

 

[Spoonman]

gun violence is down in the USA. Since Clinton's assault weapons ban was ended, the rate has dropped every year. in fact the rate US gun violence is dropping is equal to or greater than the rates in any country that has enacted gun bans

 

[Bumberclyde]

Then he got shot.

 

[kaz]

And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either. That's my point.

And people don't do things like target practice or hunt for the purpose of shooting anyone either.

Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Let's go to the video tape

Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is

Touchdown, two point conversion.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian

LOL, half vegetarian. That's like being half pregnant. Dude, if you eat meat, you are not half vegetarian, you are NOT vegetarian. Vegetarians don't eat meat.

And so we have it. Hunters are making their animals into a "victim." You're civilized. Other people kill your food for you, carve it up, and you get your animal flesh in nice little plastic wrapped packages as if it's not an animal that you're eating. But for someone to shoot their own food, oh, unsavory.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Show me how guns were not invented for the purpose of making war.

They are used for collecting, hunting, sporting (skeet, trap, ...) as well as self defense. None of those were war. The original purpose is irrelevant, so I'm not going to research that for you. Your argument is the equivalent that Teflon was invented for space, which proves that it's not used in cookware. No, it doesn't.

 

[skookerasbil]

They banned guns in Australia a little while back and the damn country turned into a Jonestown virtually overnight as robberies went up 69%. But results don't matter to the far left.......its always always about the noble intentions. Fascinating.......the inability to connect the dots.

 

[P@triot]

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian

LOL, half vegetarian. That's like being half pregnant. Dude, if you eat meat, you are not half vegetarian, you are NOT vegetarian. Vegetarians don't eat meat.

"Half vegetarian"....

In other words - he's an omnivore like all humans....

 

[KNB]

Do any of you know what your guns are for? "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free. US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?

 

[kaz]

Do any of you know what your guns are for? "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free. US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?

The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.

The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.

Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.

Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.