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

[kaz]

I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun. I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need. Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut. Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook. I also am a Virginia Tech alum. The world isn't as safe as you think...

The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.

Yes... the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.

Straw Man ^^^. Your words, not mine.

Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase. Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.

Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid

Gee, thanks so much for telling me what I think and what I mean. Your executive summary has much more to do with your selective and biased hearing than anything I might have written.

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

First, he told you what you said, not what you think.

Second, how is your ass not flaming from the overt hypocrisy? Seriously, you actually do tell us what we think all the time, and what you say we think directly contradicts what we say

 

[kaz]

The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.

Yes... the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.

That's classic, isn't it? Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it

Kaz and M14 need to get together and share their love for their guns.

Now that's a strawman, you're getting the hang of it now. I love liberty, a gun is just a tool. So when you cut your grass, does that mean you're in love with your lawn mower? Or you just want your grass cut? If you're not in love with your lawn mower, does that mean you can't cut your grass?

Let me help (of course I'm not sure you can read and comprehend, but what the hell):


Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

Swish

 

[kaz]

I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun. I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need. Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut. Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook. I also am a Virginia Tech alum. The world isn't as safe as you think...

The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.

Yes... the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.

Straw Man ^^^. Your words, not mine.

Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase. Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.

Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid

Shouldn't that be the decision of the individual?

Did you mean that question to me or Wry? If you're asking me, you're preaching to the choir

 

[kaz]

So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?

It appears you are stuck on stupid.

I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.

Then don't shop in Sunnyside or the third ward where residents have a 1 in 11 chance of becoming a victim of crime in one year.

Okay, I won't. And I wouldn't if I was carrying a firearm, common sense includes having an ideas of one's surroundings. In my career I saw the consequences or read reports where someone ignored such warnings or their own sense of security because they carried a gun, and bad things happened.

I thought you were hyperventilating wanting to know why violence is such an issue here while it's not in other countries. now we have nothing to worry about? It's actually not a problem?

I'd like to know how you're aware of you're surroundings so you know when a whack job is about to come in and start shooting up the place. Do you detect a whack job aura? You're sitting in a class at Virginia Tech and suddenly your surroundings tell you someone is about to come in and start shooting up your classroom? You're the whack job

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

What's the chances of you getting a flat tire on your car? Do you carry a spare?

What's the chances of you getting into an accident? Do you have auto insurance?

I'm still confused why you are asking me these questions. Did you read my OP, the thread title and what I've been arguing throughout the thread, which is exactly in line with this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.

Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts? Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket? Are they all that cowardly?

I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun. I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need. Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut. Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook. I also am a Virginia Tech alum. The world isn't as safe as you think...

The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.

Yes... the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.

Straw Man ^^^. Your words, not mine.

Where's the strawman?
-You believe the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding
-You do not believe the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
So... where?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.

Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

70% ? Your opinion once again? If you could read to comprehend you might have focused on the two word phrase, "one reason". But you don't, you don't listen, your too busy defending yourself to absorb the opinion and ideas of others.

 

[paulitician]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

70% ? Your opinion once again?

2013
974,077 violent crimes
274,663 involved firearms
71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
Table 19
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

[Wry Catcher]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers. How many were criminals before they committed their horrendous act of violence?

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

Example

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.

 

[paulitician]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers. How many were criminals before they committed their horrendous act of violence?

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

Example

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.

Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers. How many were criminals before they committed their horrendous act of violence?

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

Example

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.

Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.

Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs. Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).

And read my posts above, define criminal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs. Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit;

Says the guy who mindlessly claimed "We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so", having no idea what % of violent crimes involve guns, and what % of guns are involved in violent crimes.

 

[paulitician]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers. How many were criminals before they committed their horrendous act of violence?

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

Example

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.

Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.

Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs. Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).

And read my posts above, define criminal.

Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

70% ? Your opinion once again?

2013
974,077 violent crimes
274,663 involved firearms
71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
Table 19
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Again you miss the point ONE REASON is the essential issue. But, thank you for finally posting a source for you post. Now, what are the other reasons?

In my opinion, based on running the domestic violent unit in very large county of rural and urban areas, the two main reasons for violence are domestic violence (including elder, spousal and child abuse) and alcohol abuse. Armed with a gun robberies are rare, road rage is much more common.

Does my experience comport with the 974,077 crimes your source reports

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

70% ? Your opinion once again?

2013
974,077 violent crimes
274,663 involved firearms
71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
Table 19
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Again you miss the point ONE REASON is the essential issue.

OK them.... where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers. How many were criminals before they committed their horrendous act of violence?

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

Example

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.

Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.

Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs. Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).

And read my posts above, define criminal.

Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.

Rant #2. You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true. Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant. That's true in some cases, it is not a universal truth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

70% ? Your opinion once again?

2013
974,077 violent crimes
274,663 involved firearms
71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
Table 19
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Again you miss the point ONE REASON is the essential issue.

OK them.... where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?

Read post #4395 and please try not to be the dishonest asshole you seem to be.

 

[paulitician]

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.

Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers. How many were criminals before they committed their horrendous act of violence?

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

Example

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.

Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.

Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs. Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).

And read my posts above, define criminal.

Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.

Rant #2. You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true. Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant. That's true in some cases, it is not a universal truth.

Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

70% ? Your opinion once again?

2013
974,077 violent crimes
274,663 involved firearms
71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
Table 19
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Again you miss the point ONE REASON is the essential issue.

OK them.... where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?

Read post #4395 and please try not to be the dishonest asshole you seem to be.

4395 does not answer my question.
Please do try again.