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

[Brain357]

There is no comparison between his question and yours. YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant. Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.

I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes. I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.

How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant? He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals. Yet 232,000 guns were stolen. Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals. But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you? Have I stepped into the land of the idiots? You've lost all credibility in my eyes. Even the obvious eludes you.

If the firearm was stolen - then obviously the owner was not there. And if they were not there, then clearly they were safe from the perpetrator.

Would you like to try again?

So then clearly they need an alarm system and a good safe. Because now gun owners have put 232,000 guns per year in the hands of criminals, which makes our country much less safe for everyone. That is irresponsible gun ownership. This is one of the main reasons we have so many gun crimes, because far too many gun owners are irresponsible. This is why gun ownership does more damage than good, because of the irresponsible ones. Now your obviously a gun owner, doesn't it embarrass you that a 232,000 guns are stolen each year? What are you and other gun owners going to do to keep from getting your guns stolen? If you guys can't figure out a way to do it on your own, then don't act surprised when the government steps in.

 

[Geaux4it]

How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant? He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals. Yet 232,000 guns were stolen. Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals. But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you? Have I stepped into the land of the idiots? You've lost all credibility in my eyes. Even the obvious eludes you.

If the firearm was stolen - then obviously the owner was not there. And if they were not there, then clearly they were safe from the perpetrator.

Would you like to try again?

So then clearly they need an alarm system and a good safe. Because now gun owners have put 232,000 guns per year in the hands of criminals, which makes our country much less safe for everyone. That is irresponsible gun ownership. This is one of the main reasons we have so many gun crimes, because far too many gun owners are irresponsible. This is why gun ownership does more damage than good, because of the irresponsible ones. Now your obviously a gun owner, doesn't it embarrass you that a 232,000 guns are stolen each year? What are you and other gun owners going to do to keep from getting your guns stolen? If you guys can't figure out a way to do it on your own, then don't act surprised when the government steps in.

So then clearly they need an alarm system and a good safe

Agree that gun owners should have a safe, alarm system not so much

Because now gun owners have put 232,000 guns per year in the hands of criminals, which makes our country much less safe for everyone.

Um no. Criminals STEAL guns from law abiding citizens which is the crime. If we were successful at killing more of these thugs the crime rate would not only continue to decline, it would so at a faster pace due to presence of a gun in the home

This is one of the main reasons we have so many gun crimes, because far too many gun owners are irresponsible. This is why gun ownership does more damage than good, because of the irresponsible

Actually, on any given day, 99.9% of gun owners go about their day lawfully. And again, we need to do a better job of killing the criminals, not impact the lawful citizens. The disease we need to kill here is the criminal, not the gun.

Now your obviously a gun owner, doesn't it embarrass you that a 232,000 guns are stolen each year?

Embarrassed? um, no... Mad? Yes... We need to do a better job of killing this demographic, the habitual criminal

What are you and other gun owners going to do to keep from getting your guns stolen?

I want to dwindle the pool of the criminal element. To do so, if we can't keep them locked up for a very long time, then we need to kill them.

If you guys can't figure out a way to do it on your own, then don't act surprised when the government steps in.

That's why you need to join the NRA. Because, we are not surprised at all. That's why we continue to fight and defeat anti-american bills attacking our civil rights.

 

[P@triot]

Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously. They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals. For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions. Why would I demand they stop carrying guns? I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.

Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

 

[Geaux4it]

Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously. They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals. For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions. Why would I demand they stop carrying guns? I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.

Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Since the police have no legal obligation to come to me, or my families aid, what good does police having a gun do for me?

-Geaux

 

[RKMBrown]

Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.

 

[Brain357]

Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[Brain357]

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.

Ah interesting post of nonsense.

 

[Brain357]

232,000 guns stolen each year. I'm guessing those weren't in gun free zones.

 

[P@triot]

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

And how many of those were stolen from police officers?

By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe

 

[Brain357]

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

And how many of those were stolen from police officers?

By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe

Probably none, but if any a very tiny percent.

Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety? So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal? That's good in your mind? Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right? I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.

 

[Ernie S.]

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.

 

[Ernie S.]

232,000 guns stolen each year. I'm guessing those weren't in gun free zones.

I'm guessing the criminals that stole the guns weren't at all concerned.

My GOD man! You have a lot of balls calling yourself "Brain".

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

And how many of those were stolen from police officers?

By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe

Probably none, but if any a very tiny percent.

Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety? So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal? That's good in your mind? Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right? I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.

And "your" an idiot.

 

[Brain357]

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.

Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault. How about you guys show some personal responsibility? You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.

 

[P@triot]

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

And how many of those were stolen from police officers?

By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe

Probably none, but if any a very tiny percent.

Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety? So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal? That's good in your mind? Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right? I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.

And as usual, the uninformed, juvenile liberal guesses as to the reality. Just so you know, guns are stolen form officers every year in this nation.

As far as the criminal being armed....criminals will always be armed. As ie pointed out many times in this thread already (and you're incapable of responding to): prostitution is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Domestic violence is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Child molestation is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Cocaine is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Murder is outlawed and you haven't stopped that.

The fact that you think you can stop criminals from getting guns just illustrates how ignorant, immature, and idealistic you are...

 

[P@triot]

Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.

Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.

Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault. How about you guys show some personal responsibility? You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.

Really stupid? So the only way a criminal obtains a gun is from theft? They don't purchase them before they get a criminal record? They don't have friends and associates purchase it for them after they get a criminal record? They don't have them passed down from previous generations? They don't obtain them from the black market?

We're literally dealing with a fuck'n child here. I guarantee you brainless here is still in high school. You can tell by his brainless, immature responses. He has no idea about the real world or the criminal underworld.

 

[Brain357]

And how many of those were stolen from police officers?

By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe

Probably none, but if any a very tiny percent.

Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety? So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal? That's good in your mind? Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right? I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.

And as usual, the uninformed, juvenile liberal guesses as to the reality. Just so you know, guns are stolen form officers every year in this nation.

As far as the criminal being armed....criminals will always be armed. As ie pointed out many times in this thread already (and you're incapable of responding to): prostitution is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Domestic violence is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Child molestation is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Cocaine is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Murder is outlawed and you haven't stopped that.

The fact that you think you can stop criminals from getting guns just illustrates how ignorant, immature, and idealistic you are...

Since your so informed then provide us with a number and a link. Let's see what percent of the 232,000 they are.

Well as long as gun owners provide them with guns they will be armed. That makes gun owners a major part of the problem.

 

[Brain357]

Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.

Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault. How about you guys show some personal responsibility? You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.

Really stupid? So the only way a criminal obtains a gun is from theft? They don't purchase them before they get a criminal record? They don't have friends and associates purchase it for them after they get a criminal record? They don't have them passed down from previous generations? They don't obtain them from the black market?

We're literally dealing with a fuck'n child here. I guarantee you brainless here is still in high school. You can tell by his brainless, immature responses. He has no idea about the real world or the criminal underworld.

Oh there are other ways, but 232,000 is a pretty big number.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are people. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.

Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.

Ah interesting post of nonsense.

Most of the cops in the US receive very little formal training and as evidenced by the number of innocent bystanders shot by police and the number of rounds they waste when firing at bad guys they obviously receive very little range time either.

Claiming just because they get paid as cops somehow makes them better then an average citizen is ignorant as hell.