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

[KevinWestern]

Criminals are armed because guns exist.

Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.

My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.

My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).

I'm a pro-second amendment type person.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Criminals are armed because guns exist.

Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.

My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.

My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).

I'm a pro-second amendment type person.

Don't criminals and mental cases have 2nd amendment rights?

 

[KevinWestern]

Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.

My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.

My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).

I'm a pro-second amendment type person.

Don't criminals and mental cases have 2nd amendment rights?

Criminals in jail (and on probation) and mental patients who are determined to be a danger to themselves and others don't always have the same rights as the rest of us.

Example: we forcibly put criminals in a jail cell and tell them they "can't leave no matter what". That is something that would be illegal to do for a non-criminal.

Where you getting at?

 

[kaz]

Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.

My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.

My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).

I'm a pro-second amendment type person.

Don't criminals and mental cases have 2nd amendment rights?

Dude, what is the matter with you? I've already answered this twice. You cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. What about that is unclear to you? You have the right to not incriminate yourself, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to a trial by jury, etc. If with those rights, government can convict you then your rights can be restricted, including the right to own a gun.

As for "mental cases," there is no difference. To remove anyone's rights, they must receive the due process of law. A despot like Obama would declare it insane to be Republican if he had the power to do it without due process. Fortunately, he doesn't.
[MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]

 

[kaz]

So that's your focus and you got the same number as me. You must be a liberal panty waste. Funny rant though.

What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.

Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes. Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.

What difference does that stat make to the OP's question? So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought. That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.

 

[Geaux4it]

I don't need no stinking plan.

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

I don't need no stinking plan.

-Geaux

Yes, that's the point of the thread, that no plan works. We're nearing almost 200 pages with no liberal presenting a plan other than a few who proposed we turn our country into a virtual Police State, which would be to say the least throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[P@triot]

I don't need no stinking plan.

-Geaux

Yes, that's the point of the thread, that no plan works. We're nearing almost 200 pages with no liberal presenting a plan other than a few who proposed we turn our country into a virtual Police State, which would be to say the least throwing the baby out with the bath water.

This was the predictable outcome. Look at the history of that idiot party...

What was their "plan" for healthcare? Stick a bunch of shit into a 2,000 page document and then tell everyone "we have to pass it before we find out what is in it". And then what was their "plan" after that? Spend three years building a website which not only doesn't work, but it actually provides cybercriminals with ALL of your private information (SSN, DOB, address, phone number, etc.).

The left is made up of a bunch of ignorant hacks who are there for one reason - they are thirsty for power. And they will offer the parasite class any table scrap imaginable so long as it bribes said parasite for their vote and ensures the power they crave.

 

[auditor0007]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Gun control is pointless unless all guns are removed completely as has been done in certain countries such as Great Britain. Yes, GB still has murders and many times murderers use knives or other lethal weapons, but the overall homicide rate is much lower than in the US. We are not going to take everyone's guns away, so more gun control laws will not reduce gun crimes.

Actually violent crimes are many many times more prevalent in England then the US and firearm crimes have gone UP there are more firearms on the street in England now then before the ban.

The statistics you are referring to do not compare apples to apples as the UK's violent crime rates includes simple assault and many lesser crimes where the US totals do not. When looking at the murder rate, the US has a higher rate by a 4 to 1 margin.

Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog

As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

 

[Geaux4it]

Gun control is pointless unless all guns are removed completely as has been done in certain countries such as Great Britain. Yes, GB still has murders and many times murderers use knives or other lethal weapons, but the overall homicide rate is much lower than in the US. We are not going to take everyone's guns away, so more gun control laws will not reduce gun crimes.

Actually violent crimes are many many times more prevalent in England then the US and firearm crimes have gone UP there are more firearms on the street in England now then before the ban.

The statistics you are referring to do not compare apples to apples as the UK's violent crime rates includes simple assault and many lesser crimes where the US totals do not. When looking at the murder rate, the US has a higher rate by a 4 to 1 margin.

Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog

As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

 

[kaz]

The statistics you are referring to do not compare apples to apples as the UK's violent crime rates includes simple assault and many lesser crimes where the US totals do not. When looking at the murder rate, the US has a higher rate by a 4 to 1 margin.

Outside several blue inner cities, we have as low or lower a crime rate. Murders happen mostly here where gun laws have the least impact. If you want to address murder rates here, end the idiotic war on drugs, deal with illegal immigration and end the minimum wage so inner city kids can get legitimate jobs.

If you don't want to address those, don't pretend you care.

 

[hunarcy]

Criminals are armed because guns exist.

Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.

My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.

My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).

I'm a pro-second amendment type person.

I understand. But, my point is that the problem exists because of criminals, not firearms.

 

[Brain357]

What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.

Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes. Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.

What difference does that stat make to the OP's question? So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought. That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

 

[KevinWestern]

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

What do you suggest we do about the gun stealing problem?

 

[kaz]

Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes. Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.

What difference does that stat make to the OP's question? So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought. That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns? And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns? It's stealing them or they won't be armed? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

What do you suggest we do about the gun stealing problem?

He's committing a "casual oversimplification" logical fallacy.

 

[Brain357]

What difference does that stat make to the OP's question? So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought. That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns? And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns? It's stealing them or they won't be armed? Seriously?

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[kaz]

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns? And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns? It's stealing them or they won't be armed? Seriously?

That doesn't answer my question.

Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread. So,

If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.

If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.

So which is it?

 

[Brain357]

So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns? And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns? It's stealing them or they won't be armed? Seriously?

That doesn't answer my question.

Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread. So,

If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.

If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.

So which is it?

So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant? If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share. Why are you avoiding the question?

 

[nodoginnafight]

A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.

We can certainly start there.

As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.

Enforcing, not gutting (see Tiahrt Amendments), the laws we have is a legitimate first step. (Regardless of pithy nonsense rebutals).

I would also suggest that those who are grossly neglegent in securing their constitutionally-protected personal firearms should be held liable for the consequences.