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

[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.

There is only one way to effectively take the guns out of the hands of criminals. That is to take all guns away from everyone. It's not going to happen, so we will continue to see mass shootings over and over again. We currently have over 300 million people living in this country, and even if only one in every ten thousand is a true mental fuck up, that amounts to 30,000 nut cases who are mentally capable of going on a rampage and killing as many as they can.

So what is the answer? I don't really know that there is one. We should be trying our best to keep the guns out of the hands of known ex-cons and people with known mental issues, and that requires better background checks, but even that won't completely stop crazies from getting guns if they really want them. With all that in mind, I do not think allowing everyone to walk around packing their own firearm is such a great idea either. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are not responsible enough to be carrying around a gun. Just think about it; there are idiots all around us every day. We see them and know they are idiots. Do we want them carrying guns?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.

Some people like to google things so they inform themselves. I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first. I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness. There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.

There you are!

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

Apology accepted.

This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said. I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work! Bam, eat that kaz. Um...OK.

Ok since you missed it all here it is:

It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.

See Kaz...Let me just requite what you said

Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves. For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them. For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection. It has to work 100% of the time. You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.

Here's Steven making the same argument. I promise you that I am not Steven and didn't make him say this. Soooo, uhhhh

Later after this exchange you were missing. But don't worry I kept an eye out for you. Then this happened:

Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet. This is you from the future. You were right!

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that. Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.

I know you're still confused but that's ok. I still accept your apology

 

[Bern80]

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.

There is only one way to effectively take the guns out of the hands of criminals. That is to take all guns away from everyone. It's not going to happen, so we will continue to see mass shootings over and over again. We currently have over 300 million people living in this country, and even if only one in every ten thousand is a true mental fuck up, that amounts to 30,000 nut cases who are mentally capable of going on a rampage and killing as many as they can.

So what is the answer? I don't really know that there is one. We should be trying our best to keep the guns out of the hands of known ex-cons and people with known mental issues, and that requires better background checks, but even that won't completely stop crazies from getting guns if they really want them. With all that in mind, I do not think allowing everyone to walk around packing their own firearm is such a great idea either. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are not responsible enough to be carrying around a gun. Just think about it; there are idiots all around us every day. We see them and know they are idiots. Do we want them carrying guns?

Are you serious? Did taking cocaine away from everyone stop people from using it? And taking away guns is the only way to stop mass shootings? Really?! There's nothing else we can do to address that? Perhaps plugging in a little more as parents.

 

[kaz]

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.

There is only one way to effectively take the guns out of the hands of criminals. That is to take all guns away from everyone. It's not going to happen, so we will continue to see mass shootings over and over again. We currently have over 300 million people living in this country, and even if only one in every ten thousand is a true mental fuck up, that amounts to 30,000 nut cases who are mentally capable of going on a rampage and killing as many as they can.

So what is the answer? I don't really know that there is one. We should be trying our best to keep the guns out of the hands of known ex-cons and people with known mental issues, and that requires better background checks, but even that won't completely stop crazies from getting guns if they really want them. With all that in mind, I do not think allowing everyone to walk around packing their own firearm is such a great idea either. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are not responsible enough to be carrying around a gun. Just think about it; there are idiots all around us every day. We see them and know they are idiots. Do we want them carrying guns?

What about allowing honest citizens the right to protect themselves? Our approach now is to make it catastrophic for the lives and careers of honest citizens while doing virtually nothing that keeps them out of the hands of criminals. How do you not think when you see things like dozens of pep[le killed by one lunatic that wow, what if some of them had guns!

Not to mention that in NY, DC and all the places that outlaw guns, the criminals are unopposed every time they commit robberies and that sort of thing. Isn't there some point where liberals think wow, what we're doing is not only not working, it's actually bad?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws

Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....

Link?

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative

How about that?

Did someone here say there was a Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime? If not why is that link included?

I see you've opted to use the waste of time technique of debating. Put up links that has nothing to do with what I said. Thanks for that and thanks for proving you don't have the data to back up what you're saying.

 

[Steven_R]

Isn't there some point where liberals think wow, what we're doing is not only not working, it's actually bad?

No. It just means the laws didn't go far enough. More, much stricter, laws are needed. Repeat ad nauseum.

 

[kaz]

Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that. Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.

I know you're still confused but that's ok. I still accept your apology

What is wrong with you? Here is what I said you pulled out of your ass.

I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.

Neither of them argued that eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders either. You know what, in your case I'm going to give you my blessing to just quote Keith Olbermann...

 

[Bern80]

Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....

Link?

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative

How about that?

Did someone here say there was a Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime? If not why is that link included?

I see you've opted to use the waste of time technique of debating. Put up links that has nothing to do with what I said. Thanks for that and thanks for proving you don't have the data to back up what you're saying.

Sooo, why are you here exactly? Cause as far as I can tell it's simply to be argumentative. I believe you originally asked someone to show that greater gun regulation doesn't reduce violence? The implication being that you do believe such laws reduce gun violence, but you're saying that isn't your position now. So what is your position? Or are you just a forum troll?

 

[kaz]

Isn't there some point where liberals think wow, what we're doing is not only not working, it's actually bad?

No. It just means the laws didn't go far enough. More, much stricter, laws are needed. Repeat ad nauseum.

Yep. Gun laws didn't work, they aren't restrictive enough!

Trillions spent on the War on Poverty hasn't changed poverty rates, we didn't spend enough money!

Regulation to death of energy, health care and banking have just made things worse, we didn't regulate enough!

Obama's economic policies haven't worked in 5 years now, we didn't give him enough time!

There is no ability to question that maybe, just maybe, their plans don't work because they are stupid...

 

[Missourian]

I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.

Some people like to google things so they inform themselves. I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first. I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness. There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.

There you are!

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

Apology accepted.

This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said. I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work! Bam, eat that kaz. Um...OK.

That's exactly what I said...maybe hearing it twice will help though.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that. Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.

I know you're still confused but that's ok. I still accept your apology

What is wrong with you? Here is what I said you pulled out of your ass.

I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.

Neither of them argued that eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders either. You know what, in your case I'm going to give you my blessing to just quote Keith Olbermann...

Steven R said: It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this?


No he didn't say all, he doesn't need to say "all" the message is loud and clear when he said "magically" stop shooting people.

Apology accepted...now you can play the semantics game with someone else

 

[kaz]

Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that. Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.

I know you're still confused but that's ok. I still accept your apology

What is wrong with you? Here is what I said you pulled out of your ass.

I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.

Neither of them argued that eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders either. You know what, in your case I'm going to give you my blessing to just quote Keith Olbermann...

Steven R said: It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this?


No he didn't say all, he doesn't need to say "all" the message is loud and clear when he said "magically" stop shooting people.

Apology accepted...now you can play the semantics game with someone else

He wasn't even addressing the point whether reducing gun laws would reduce murders, he was mocking your view that you wanted more gun laws, which aren't working now as if one more law is the one that will do the trick. You seriously didn't get that? Semantics? Something is seriously wrong with you.

 

[kaz]

There you are!



Apology accepted.

This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said. I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work! Bam, eat that kaz. Um...OK.

That's exactly what I said...maybe hearing it twice will help though.

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?

He thinks you said that if we eliminate all gun laws that would eliminate all murders. I see no possible way to get that out of what you said.

 

[KGB]

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

 

[KGB]

This is probably the argument that bothers me the most and the one that is most irrational out of all of them. There should be no negative stigma attached to gun ownership. I should not be made to feel bad or be financial burdened by taxes because I own guns. I wish people like you would start asking yourselves whether your perceoption of guns is even accurate before you start advocating for measures to get rid of them under some naive auspice that you're doing some great good. The fact is, you're not. What you're proposing is completely immoral. You do not punish the law abiding in a feeble attempt to stop the non-law abiding.

Perception is based on experience. I am aware enough to know where my perception about guns comes from. I grew up in northern, rural Minnesota. Not a very populace area, but there were easily hundreds of guns within a mile of my home growing up. Yet to this day, no one has died or been injured from any of them. No one has ever even been shot at as far as I'm aware. Where I grew up, guns weren't used by gang members to defend their turf or execute people or rob them. They are used for hunting primarily and sport shooting. Last weekend was duck hunting opener. You have never heard such caucophony of gun fire in your life, I promise. Yet no one was killed.

I know you've heard this before, but it isn't sinking in. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Stop this ridiculous crusade of punishing law abiding individuals like myself with the naive notion that you'll stop criminal behavior. Your comparision to cigarettes is ridiculous. Cigarettes kill exponentially more people than guns. And like them or not, it is not a proper role of government to regulate them.

 

[Missourian]

This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said. I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work! Bam, eat that kaz. Um...OK.

That's exactly what I said...maybe hearing it twice will help though.

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?

He thinks you said that if we eliminate all gun laws that would eliminate all murders. I see no possible way to get that out of what you said.

Me either...

My point was, these mass shooters passed a NICS background check and bought their guns at the store...

...then gun grabbers come along and say "We have a solution...we'll expand background checks to private sales!"

Are they idiots?

The background check didn't stop these guys...how is background checking OTHER gun purchases even remotely being seriously considered as a solution?

So Cho, Loughner, Joker, and Alexis go to private party...STILL pass a background check and STILL go on a mass shooting spree!

Solution = failure of the highest magnitude.

How do these folks fail to understand this?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.

Of course. An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation. How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?

 

[kaz]

Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.

Of course. An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation. How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?

So what about government licenses, fees and background checks for abortions? Pro-lifers have the same belief about abortions spreading "daily carnage that costs the lives of innocents across our nation."

 

[Steven_R]

Discuss it all you want, but if an act is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional.

If only there were a method for fixing the Constitution if it is found to be inadequate. A way of amending it perhaps? Nah, that'd never work. Let's just use hyperbole and emotion and ignore the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.

Specifically address the point in the op, please. Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.

Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun. Honest citizens should not have a problem with gun control and your apples and antelope analogy is silly.

Think of my post as people control, not gun control. Even a gun lover knows that not everyone is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons. Next time someone shoots and kills a dozen or more unarmed citizens argue that more and more of us ought to be armed. Next time someone shoots and kills 24 innocents in an elementary school just say, "ain't it awful" but my rights supersede their lives.

Nothing in the four points I posted impact your liberty in any real sense. You can still have your guns, only if they were implemented you would need to exercise personal responsibility for owning, possessing and having in your custody and control a gun or else go to jail and pay a fine.