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

[Brain357]

There are more pressing issues impacting ALL Americans where the energy should be focused

-Geaux

Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.

Firearm ownership is a powerful family tradition in many areas. There are many things that represent the Untied States way of life, and to some extent, the pubs and the citizens are letting slip away.

Firearm ownership is not one of them

BTW- You do know the NRA used to draft and promote restrictive gun control laws

-Geaux

And now they went wacky and just promote more guns as the answer to everything.

 

[Brain357]

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.

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty extra.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

 

[Bumberclyde]

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

 

[Geaux4it]

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

But that impacts lawful gun owners. Why not impact the criminal by sending them to prison for life? Severe consequences are effective tools.

Not many thefts in countries where they remove the hand of the offender.

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

While it sounds good, our jails are already packed. It's not realistic that we could do that

 

[Bumberclyde]

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

But that impacts lawful gun owners. Why not impact the criminal by sending them to prison for life? Severe consequences are effective tools.

Not many thefts in countries where they remove the hand of the offender.

-Geaux

Isn't it time for you to go kiss a carpet?

 

[Geaux4it]

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

While it sounds good, our jails are already packed. It's not realistic that we could do that

If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention

-Geaux

 

[Bumberclyde]

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

While it sounds good, our jails are already packed. It's not realistic that we could do that

If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention

-Geaux

Except that jail isn't the only option. A fingerprint scanner is one of many options.

 

[Geaux4it]

While it sounds good, our jails are already packed. It's not realistic that we could do that

If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention

-Geaux

Except that jail isn't the only option. A fingerprint scanner is one of many options.

Again, your options impact the lawful citizen.. Prison does not

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

While it sounds good, our jails are already packed. It's not realistic that we could do that

If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention

-Geaux

That is ultimately how to reduce crime, keep the criminals we have in jail. Now if we could just get the parties to stop manufacturing them. The Republicans with the War on Drugs and other idiotic policies telling us what we can do with our bodies and funding organized crime in the process and the Democrats with the minimum wage which prevents inner city kids from getting legitimate jobs and their other programs to foster government dependency.

 

[kaz]

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.

What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux

While it sounds good, our jails are already packed. It's not realistic that we could do that

Let's start by ending the war on drugs, letting the non-violent offenders go, and filling the space with violent criminals.

 

[Wildman]

anyone know what the fastest growing demographic in America is? Gun owners

thanks to the best gun salesman in the past 100 years !

Obama backfires, gun sales in 2013 smash all records.


His actions convinced millions of Americans to buy more firearms than any time in history. <--------<<<< the only thing he has done that is GOOD for America

The FBI reported that it performed an astounding 21,093,273 background checks for the year ending Dec. 31. In fact, eight of the top 10 highest weeks ever for National Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks were in 2013 (the other two were during Dec. 2012.)


MILLER: Obama backfires, gun sales in 2013 smash all records - Washington Times

 

[kaz]

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class. OK, once again. Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.

The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens. So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.

CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work. Price is just another method of making guns "illegal." Criminals will just go buy illegal guns. She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal." The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.

You are doing the same thing. You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership. And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners. Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class. OK, once again. Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.

The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens. So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.

CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work. Price is just another method of making guns "illegal." Criminals will just go buy illegal guns. She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal." The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.

You are doing the same thing. You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership. And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners. Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.

Not only the fingerprint scanner, but make new guns with slightly bigger barrels that would need bigger bullets. Once the bullets in circulation are all shot, the new bullets won't fit the old guns. Check. And mate.

 

[kaz]

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class. OK, once again. Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.

The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens. So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.

CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work. Price is just another method of making guns "illegal." Criminals will just go buy illegal guns. She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal." The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.

You are doing the same thing. You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership. And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners. Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.

Not only the fingerprint scanner, but make new guns with slightly bigger barrels that would need bigger bullets. Once the bullets in circulation are all shot, the new bullets won't fit the old guns. Check. And mate.

I see. So you concede criminals are smart enough to buy illegal guns, but illegal bullets, that they'd never think of. Wow, you are quite the brainiac.

 

[kaz]

You know, clyde, there is a dimension to this you're not grasping.

You're trying to solve with laws a problem regarding the activities of people who by definition ... don't follow laws ...

Think about it. When that synapses fires, you will suddenly grasp the OPs point ...

 

[RKMBrown]

You know, clyde, there is a dimension to this you're not grasping.

You're trying to solve with laws a problem regarding the activities of people who by definition ... don't follow laws ...

Think about it. When that synapses fires, you will suddenly grasp the OPs point ...

Cognitive dissonance... his brain won't let him grasp it. The only way you can get a libtardian to grasp basic truths is for them to here it from their leadership. They live on so many lies that their inherent level of dissonance is constantly stressing them into believing anything told to them by their masters on face. Any liberal lie, no matter how big, simply can't be grasped by a libtardian mind.

For you see, if they were to admit the emperor has no clothes, they would be thrown to the wolves by their comrades. Thus even though the emperor is stark naked, they see him clothed in regal attire.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Well what is more important than a child? So if a child is abducted, the parent or guardian should be charged with a crime?

And not getting raped is pretty damn important. So if a woman "allows" herself to be raped, she should be charged with a crime?

Yeah, it's always good to go after the victim of a crime...

 

[P@triot]

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.

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons? Why are we even looking at the total number of guns? There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals. And we have to remember this is a per year number. After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns. I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US. So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty extra.

Yes, I completely agree with you that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, it is important to look at the statistics because it's a measure of the problem. So the question becomes, how many freedoms do you want to trample and how much money do you want to spend on a 0.077% (or less than half of 1%) problem?