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

[P@triot]

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.

I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.

What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.

How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with one meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.

That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).

I think drug laws are completely different. The only victim of drugs is the person taking them. People aren't using drugs to kill other innocent people.

That's not the issue though. You're trying to use the old "slight of hand" here. I never said drugs create other victims or are used to kill innocent people. And that's not an answer for the real question. The question is - how are our laws against heroin working out? The stuff is rampant. Literally rampant. You cannot enter a community - no matter how rural and not find heroin readily available. Even the Amish have heroin rampant in their community.

So why do I bring that up? Because it proves that you can never regulate guns out of the hands of criminals. And why? Because a criminal doesn't follow the law (that's what makes he/she a criminal).

The answer is simple, clear, and proven. Arm people. There has never been a criminal (insane or otherwise) who was looking for a "fair" fight. Adam Lanza went to Newtown because he knew it would be a slaughter where he could play unopposed "god". There's a reason he didn't go to the local police headquarters and attempt the same thing.

Well you won't find me defending criminals. But I think we need to look at why there are so many criminals. I mean our jails are so full compared to other countries for a reason. Now personally I think it has a lot to do with inequality, but being a righty I'm sure you'll deny that even exists. But for those who commit the most horrible of crimes I say get rid of and for others it better not be like a resort.

That's beyond insane and you know it. This is akin to saying that fat ugly men should be allowed to rape women because there is an "inequality" in their ability to have consensual sex as opposed to thin, attractive men.

Furthermore, there is no "inequality" and there never has been. Well, at least not until Dumbocrats got government involved and made sure that only certain businesses (like Solyndra) and certain people (like the parasite class) receives tons of money and favors in exchange for votes to gain and/or retain power.

Nobody commits crime because of "inequality". They commit crimes because they are sociopaths with no conscience and because we have a "justice" system which encourages crime. It's a system where the criminal has all of the rights. It's a system designed by the criminal, for the criminal.

Look I'm not trying to take guns away from everybody. But as long as we can't seem to do anything about criminals and crazies I'd just assume do what we can to keep them away from guns.

I never accused you of that. I'm simply saying what every other rational person on this thread has said - "what is your plan"? So far, not one liberal has been able to provide a practical plan.

Want to know why? Because the only plan that actually works - increasing armed law abiding citizens - is in direct conflict with their irrational ideology.

 

[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...

Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.

ANd as far as "strawman" - Chicago, Washington D.C., New York, and many other cities have actually banned guns. The Supreme Court already over turned Chicago and Washington D.C. So in your uninformed and immature mind, it is "strawman" to cite reality? It is "strawman" to cite what has actually occurred?

You know when a Dumbocrat has been thoroughly defeated when they scream one of two things: racist! or strawman!

 

[P@triot]

Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.

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.

See how stupid Dumbocrats are? To them, "it makes no fucking sense" that where ever guns are prevalent (police stations, around the president, NRA meetings, etc.) there are no "incidents" and peace reigns, while wherever they ban guns (Chicago, Washington D.C., schools), bloodbaths and slaughters reign.

Furthermore, stupid, the "will of the people" is more firearms (because they are a lot brighter than you Dumbocrats). Look at the numbers junior (you're in the extreme ignorant minority who are too blinded by partisan ideology and too brainwashed by irrational fear of an inanimate object)....

Gallup has been asking Americans since 1959: Do you think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

—1959: 60 percent
—1965: 49 percent
—1975: 41 percent
—1988: 37 percent
—1999: 34 percent
—2006: 32 percent
—2009: 28 percent
—2012: 24 percent

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. “Control.” Threshold Editions. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11

 

[ClosedCaption]

KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer. You know what we should do to solve a problem? Nothing!!

I'm not sure what that means.

Of course you don't...

You say that liberals don't have an answer. Your answer to gun violence? Do nothing.

So you and liberals both have something in common

I said this on page 1. More than 100 pages later this is prophetic

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what that means.

Of course you don't...

You say that liberals don't have an answer. Your answer to gun violence? Do nothing.

So you and liberals both have something in common

I said this on page 1. More than 100 pages later this is prophetic

You are spewing gibberish again.

My solution is to allow people to arm and defend themselves because you can't stop criminals from having guns.

Liberals solution is to pass gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves and do nothing to disarm criminals.

The word for seeing those as "something in common" would not be "prophetic," it would just be a general lack of comprehension.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.

What you did was expose your ignorance.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

He doesn't know that people can manufacture their own firearms. guess he's never heard of a zip gun. Improvised firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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?

He doesn't know that people can manufacture their own firearms. guess he's never heard of a zip gun. Improvised firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's also his party who demand we allow anyone who wants to walk freely across our borders carrying anything they want. Yet they don't grasp "anyone" includes criminals and "anything" includes guns. Just like happens with drugs now.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).

And not a single provision I've tossed out for consideration has any impact at all on the law adiding citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to own a gun.

The false dichotomy that we have to leave the criminals alone so that we don't vicitimize law-abiding citizens is pure horseshit. If it weren't, folks wouldn't have to commit logical fallacies in order to claim it.

 

[kaz]

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?

the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).

And not a single provision I've tossed out for consideration has any impact at all on the law adiding citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to own a gun.

The false dichotomy that we have to leave the criminals alone so that we don't vicitimize law-abiding citizens is pure horseshit. If it weren't, folks wouldn't have to commit logical fallacies in order to claim it.

As the OP, you're completely mis-portraying my argument on multiple levels.

1) I did not say that only stolen guns in the hands of criminals is bad, I said all guns in the hands of criminals is bad. When you say that I am not against abiding citizens owning guns, that's true. But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true because those aren't the only guns criminals possess.

2) Dealing with the current guns that criminals have is missing that I am saying that even if we were able to at a particular moment take every gun from every criminal, they would find ways to get more, and very quickly, and we would have what we have now again. Just like drugs constantly flow into the country. So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.

3) You're not addressing the whole theme that I am pointing out that gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Think about it. Of course I'm good with going after criminals who have guns, but your solution of going after honest citizens who are crime victims to do it is directly contradictory to my point.

 

[P@triot]

Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.

What you did was expose your ignorance.

What I did was expose your irrational response and inability to do basic math (hence the reason you can't dispute what I said )

 

[nodoginnafight]

When you say that I am not against abiding citizens owning guns, that's true.

I didn't say that about you - that's the position I have been arguing from the begining.

But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true

I never said they were. In fact - I said "We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible)."

So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.

All of my suggestions have been geared to preventing criminals from getting guns NOT taking the ones they already have.

You're not addressing the whole theme that I am pointing out that gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Think about it. Of course I'm good with going after criminals who have guns, but your solution of going after honest citizens who are crime victims to do it is directly contradictory to my point.

MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.

What you did was expose your ignorance.

What I did was expose your irrational response and inability to do basic math (hence the reason you can't dispute what I said )

I already have - twice. If you're too stupid to know it - that's you're problem not mine. Have a great day.

 

[P@triot]

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?

the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).

And not a single provision I've tossed out for consideration has any impact at all on the law adiding citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to own a gun.

The false dichotomy that we have to leave the criminals alone so that we don't vicitimize law-abiding citizens is pure horseshit. If it weren't, folks wouldn't have to commit logical fallacies in order to claim it.

Yes - but that "100%" you're focused on is the result of 0.077% (because that's how many guns are stolen chief).

Furthermore, where did I ever say "leave criminals alone" genius? As far as I'm concerned, you can kill them. No, I mean literally kill them. I find criminals fuck'n deplorable and a plague on humanity. So go fuck'n kill them. I'll support you 100% (of course, we both know as a liberal you're too lazy to get out of your recliner to actually make any positive impact on this world - but should the day come where you're lazy ass actually does rise out of that recliner and you actually do go eliminate criminals, I'll defend you to the ends of the universe and beyond).

But so far, you've offered NO plan (as usual from the left) other than "lets fuck over law abiding citizens to appease our irrational fears of an inanimate object which we are completely unfamiliar with".

 

[ClosedCaption]

Of course you don't...

You say that liberals don't have an answer. Your answer to gun violence? Do nothing.

So you and liberals both have something in common

I said this on page 1. More than 100 pages later this is prophetic

You are spewing gibberish again.

My solution is to allow people to arm and defend themselves because you can't stop criminals from having guns.

Liberals solution is to pass gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves and do nothing to disarm criminals.

The word for seeing those as "something in common" would not be "prophetic," it would just be a general lack of comprehension.

Since we do that already your answer is do nothing like I said

 

[nodoginnafight]

Feel better Rottweiler? After creating a figment of your imagination to argue with? and inventing statements never made to argue with?

If that's all you got - why don't you get back to your homework and let the big people talk?

 

[kaz]

I said this on page 1. More than 100 pages later this is prophetic

You are spewing gibberish again.

My solution is to allow people to arm and defend themselves because you can't stop criminals from having guns.

Liberals solution is to pass gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves and do nothing to disarm criminals.

The word for seeing those as "something in common" would not be "prophetic," it would just be a general lack of comprehension.

Since we do that already your answer is do nothing like I said

Try to follow a simple point. Simple is your native language as you are a Simpleton, so you should be able to do that.

Yes, MY solution is to do nothing. To allow people to defend themselves. That isn't the liberal solution. The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.

You said my solution was like the liberal solution. It isn't, not in any way.

 

[kaz]

MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)

Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless. If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions. I am not really getting what you are getting at here. Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1. If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all. I think you just insulted yourself.

 

[kaz]

So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1. If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all. I think you just insulted yourself.

I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have. You don't know the difference between my view of allowing honest citizens to arm themselves to counter armed criminals and liberals wanting to disarm honest citizens while leaving criminals armed. We know you don't now the difference because you keep saying I "agree with the point" you made at the beginning of the discussion.