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

[kaz]

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?

Strawman. The thread doesn't say to list every stat about guns that is not "irrelevant." It's to tell us your liberal plan for keeping guns away from criminals. So, is this your plan or is it a red herring?

If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share. Why are you avoiding the question?

You need to answer the OP before telling anyone else they are 'avoiding the question,' hombre...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets assume for a moment we outlaw the private ownership of firearms and somehow confiscate them all, shall we? Legal ones of course since there is no way to confiscate illegal ones.

Your argument is that stolen firearms are the only problem and that if they were not available to be stolen criminals would not have firearms. Once all the private law abiding citizens lost all their firearms the criminals would simple steal them from the Military and the police and private contractors.

So your argument is moot and pointless since unless you plan to devise a plan to confiscate ALL firearms from ALL sources you will not stop the theft of firearms.

Now back to the OPS question, what is your plan to keep firearms from criminals?

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

 

[Brain357]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns. Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?

 

[hazlnut]

Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid... If a tax on voting is unconstitutional because it INFRINGES the right, then a punitive tax on firearms is also unconstitutional.

All taxes are punitive to some degree. Again, you are only coming up with excuses. At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.

Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.

We have lost sight of that.

In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior.


When you say "your" precious little social polices. You mean "our". You have a vote. The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets. And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.

We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.

The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.

As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine. However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?


Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns. Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?

Probably not - I'm in favor of doing what we can to cut off that supply.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns. Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?

I think things like forcing people to report lost weapons could help combat this. It's tough. Things are stolen all the time - in every category of retail. How do you prevent? I'm not sure.

 

[nodoginnafight]

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.

I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.

 

[KevinWestern]

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.

I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.

Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.

I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.

Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.

I didn't suggest that.

Grossly neglegent (to me anyway, I guess a more full definition would have to be fleshed out) is leaving your piece in the front seat of your unlocked car while you pop into the store for a "minute." Or basically just being so stupidly careless that you virtually invite someone to take it. I'd also be OK with charging someone who doesn't even make a thief defeat one, medium duty lock in order to steal their gun.

 

[Brain357]

It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.

I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.

Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.

Well this isn't stolen jewelry. This is an extremely dangerous weapon now in the hands of a criminal. Now this guys neighbors and community are potentially in danger. Should the gun owner get a fine for the damage done to the community by arming a criminal? Maybe gun owners should have to insure guns with a sum going to local gov if gun is stolen. Owning a gun is a big responsibility. If someone isn't up for it they shouldn't own one.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Holding people responsible for taking reasonable steps to secure their firearms is one small step. Reversing all the roadblocks to enforcing existing laws created by the tiahrt amendments (among others) is a good second step.

Don't fight new laws by saying "just enforce the laws we have" when you've gutted those laws and rendered them nearly impossible to enforce.

If we do that - along with requiring background checks on every gun sale (which means some measures to discourage shadow buyers also) then we probably don't need anything more intrusive. This menatlity that ANY common sense measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is an assault on the constitution is absurd. Creating false all-black or all-white arguments is wrong. I think there IS middle ground that could be effective and could create a safer environment without infringing on anyone's constitutional rights (which - like it or not - includes owning a gun).

 

[kaz]

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?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns. Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?

Your question is irrelevant. If stolen guns were not stolen, then those criminals would get guns other ways. Criminals take the path of least resistance. You still need to show that if criminals didn't steal guns, they would not be able to get them. Which of course is absurd, they could.

Also, you are arguing that stolen guns are the largest source of guns, it's on you to show that's true, it's not on anyone else to show it's not.

 

[P@triot]

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?

Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign. This debate is over. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.

 

[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?

Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign. This debate is over. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

 

[Spoonman]

keep it up gun grabbers. the more you try to force your issues, the more you fall behind. what other industry is going through such massive expansion and still can't keep up with demand? bottom line gun friendly states win, blue states lose. they lose jobs, revenue and tax dollars. and the number of guns owned in there states are still exploding. and this is just domestic manufacturing. the amount of foreign product flooding this country is staggering. and kids today want guns. kids years ago barely had guns on their minds. but today, they become legal age and they have to have one. its going to be a real wild ride the next few years

Another Gun Maker Says "Ciao!" to Restrictive Laws (RGR, SWHC)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign. This debate is over. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.

The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.

 

[Brain357]

keep it up gun grabbers. the more you try to force your issues, the more you fall behind. what other industry is going through such massive expansion and still can't keep up with demand? bottom line gun friendly states win, blue states lose. they lose jobs, revenue and tax dollars. and the number of guns owned in there states are still exploding. and this is just domestic manufacturing. the amount of foreign product flooding this country is staggering. and kids today want guns. kids years ago barely had guns on their minds. but today, they become legal age and they have to have one. its going to be a real wild ride the next few years

Another Gun Maker Says "Ciao!" to Restrictive Laws (RGR, SWHC)

So your happy about kids and guns?
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire