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

[TemplarKormac]

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. They wouldn't do anything to help keep the poor in perpetual states of poverty. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements. But in Joe's imaginary world, the rich are responsible for poverty and are the ones who should be punished for it.

 

[martybegan]

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

Envy, JoeB's favorite deadly sin. You are lucky stupidity isnt one as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

You're joking, aren't you? How else did he kill 13 people? The same way Nadal Hasan did. If you're a contractor you know the weaknesses of the military base you're working in/for. It's funny you think you know what the inside of a military base is like. Have you ever been inside of one? Do you know what one is like? I don't think you do, Joe.

 

[martybegan]

[

Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements.

What policies are those, guy?

You guys have been pushing austerity and cutting taxes for rich people as the key to getting more jobs for 30 years now.

So where are the fucking jobs?

Tax the rich, use that money to build roads and bridges and schools and guess what, we'll have jobs. Dump these idiotic trade treaties that enable the world's worst regimes at the expense of the American worker.

But let's be honest, the 1%ers don't want that. The closest they got full employment was under Clinton. They had to pay a little more in taxes, but they were making record profits! They just had to pay the wage slaves a little more.

What? Pay the Wage Slaves? FUck that. Impeach that fucker bringing us prosperity and peace!!! He lied about a BLOW JOB!!!!

Nice to see you idiots have your priorities.

(Full disclosure, in 1999, I was one of these idiots screaming to impeach Clinton. Now I wish we had him back.)

 

[JoeB131]

[

Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.

We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.

And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.

In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.

Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.

First of all, five of the nine “potential mass shootings” that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say “allegedly” because there’s no evidence to corroborate the guard’s claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. It’s absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.

 

[martybegan]

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.

We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.

And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.

In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.

Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.

First of all, five of the nine “potential mass shootings” that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say “allegedly” because there’s no evidence to corroborate the guard’s claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. It’s absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.

Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".

Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".

Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.

But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.

Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements.

What policies are those, guy?

You guys have been pushing austerity and cutting taxes for rich people as the key to getting more jobs for 30 years now.

So where are the fucking jobs?

Tax the rich, use that money to build roads and bridges and schools and guess what, we'll have jobs. Dump these idiotic trade treaties that enable the world's worst regimes at the expense of the American worker.

But let's be honest, the 1%ers don't want that. The closest they got full employment was under Clinton. They had to pay a little more in taxes, but they were making record profits! They just had to pay the wage slaves a little more.

What? Pay the Wage Slaves? FUck that. Impeach that fucker bringing us prosperity and peace!!! He lied about a BLOW JOB!!!!

Nice to see you idiots have your priorities.

(Full disclosure, in 1999, I was one of these idiots screaming to impeach Clinton. Now I wish we had him back.)

1) Gee I was hoping you'd tell me, Joe. You liberals always seem to think you know what's best.

2) First off, even if I had supported austerity and tax breaks for the rich, can you make a direct correlation between the poor being poor and the rich being rich?

3) Given that you want burger flippers to make $15 an hour, it shows you care more about greed than people. People like that aren't worth that kind of money. Basically all you're doing is paying them to sate America's deadly fast food habit. You accuse rich people of greed, yet you whine about the minimum wage not being enough. Since when has it ever been enough? That's greed. That's rank avarice.

4) Spare me your Occupy 1%er crap. That was so September of 2011. You don't care, you're proving each time you speak. Why is it they are still in poverty? Just what has welfare and foodstamps done to bring them out of it? You whine about wanting jobs, you blame the rich, but then you are passing healthcare plans that kill jobs and asking for insane wages that even the richest businessman would never pay you. Your own greed is killing the workforce. Never happy with what you have you make a habit of demanding more and more. Its as if you act like you don't have to earn what you 'work' for.

5) Your sarcasm is clear proof that your argument is weak. But then again, I never accused you of having any priorities for those poor folks out there.

 

[theHawk]

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

Wrong, we do have a plan. Its called keeping criminals locked up in prison and the mentally insane locked up in mental hospitals.

Its something this country used to do, which is why mass murders were non-existant. Now-a-days criminals get second chances, let loose on paroll, and mentally ill are just given some pills.

 

[martybegan]

[

Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".

Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.

But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.

Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.

The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.

If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.

Same old same old Joe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.

We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.

And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.

In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.

Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.

First of all, five of the nine “potential mass shootings” that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say “allegedly” because there’s no evidence to corroborate the guard’s claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. It’s absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.

Aaand... that's spin for you. The fact they were stopped by someone with a gun still remains. Argument debunked. You can make all the convoluted arguments for gun control you want, but if hadn't been for someone controlling one, more people would be dead. Abeit though there was the assailant controlling one too. But it's like matter and antimatter, you need one to cancel the other out.

 

[JoeB131]

[

1) Gee I was hoping you'd tell me, Joe. You liberals always seem to think you know what's best.

2) First off, even if I had supported austerity and tax breaks for the rich, can you make a direct correlation between the poor being poor and the rich being rich?

Um, yeah. When the rich move a factory overseas or replace an employee with a machine or reduce a department from 8 people to 3 (like has happened at my job), but still require them to do the same amount of work, but then they don't reduce the price for a good or service, that really is a transfer of wealth from the WORKING CLASS to the MONIED CLASS. (Let's use the proper terms here.)

[
3) Given that you want burger flippers to make $15 an hour, it shows you care more about greed than people. People like that aren't worth that kind of money. Basically all you're doing is paying them to sate America's deadly fast food habit. You accuse rich people of greed, yet you whine about the minimum wage not being enough. Since when has it ever been enough? That's greed. That's rank avarice.

No, that's actually paying them a decent wage for hard work. Again, going back to the Clinton years, those burger flipping jobs actually paid more than minimum wage. And we were better off for it.

Oh, the CEO of McDonald's made 8.25 million last year. I think that is a lot more obscene than paying a "burger flipper" (you know the guy who is actually preparing the food) a decent wage.

Oh, wait, didn't you say you don't even have a job?

4) Spare me your Occupy 1%er crap. That was so September of 2011. You don't care, you're proving each time you speak. Why is it they are still in poverty? Just what has welfare and foodstamps done to bring them out of it? You whine about wanting jobs, you blame the rich, but then you are passing healthcare plans that kill jobs and asking for insane wages that even the richest businessman would never pay you. Your own greed is killing the workforce. Never happy with what you have you make a habit of demanding more and more. Its as if you act like you don't have to earn what you 'work' for.

Blaming any policy for the greed of the rich is like blaming a short dress for a rape. The thing is these guys screwed their workers before ObamaCare, and they'd be screwing them ObamaCare or not.

You spend on infrastructure and education, THAT produces jobs, that increases competitiveness. Not some greedy CEO making 8 figures.

Oh, by the way, MOST other countries, the CEO don't make 8 figures. They usually make about six. Only in the US do we think rewarding greed is a good idea.

[
5) Your sarcasm is clear proof that your argument is weak. But then again, I never accused you of having any priorities for those poor folks out there.

No, my sarcarism is a reflection of having to try to argue with a young punk who really hasn't lived all that much, really hasn't been out there in the real world.

I'm 51. I've been working since I was 16. Worked from a little mom-and-pop Pizza place to today, where I work for a multi-national corporation and deal with associates all over the world. (This week, I worked on a project involving colleagues in Mexico, China and the Czech republic). Been in the military. Worked for both government and private entities.

And what have you done? Stayed at home, living off of others.

Seriously, just shut the fuck up.

 

[kaz]

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Roads are a power that was ceded to government in the Constitution. Guns are a right that was protected from Government in the Constitution. Not only are they not the same, they are the opposite.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Aaand... that's spin for you. The fact they were stopped by someone with a gun still remains. Argument debunked. You can make all the convoluted arguments for gun control you want, but if hadn't been for someone controlling one, more people would be dead. Abeit though there was the assailant controlling one too. But it's like matter and antimatter, you need one to cancel the other out.

No, they were stopped by TRAINED PEOPLE, who were authorized to have guns after thorough background checks and extensive training.

In short, not Cleetus and Clem who are keeping a gun on the rifle rack in case the gummit tries to take their guns.

And frankly, these were all pretty rare cases. In a couple, the rampage happened anyway.

 

[candycorn]

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now against selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.

The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.

Oh okay; "it's wrong".

Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place. If you want to call it punative fine. Sounds justified to me.

Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc... Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon. The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct? His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.

Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.

As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy federal prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime). The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police. At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).

I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring. The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here. Dunno.

Thanks for the thoughful and civil response. I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.

Again, thanks for the debate.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".

Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.

But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.

Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.

The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.

If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.

Same old same old Joe.

Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.

You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one. your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.

Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.

Oh, and I've already stated my solution.

Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.

Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.

 

[candycorn]

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

Wrong, we do have a plan. Its called keeping criminals locked up in prison and the mentally insane locked up in mental hospitals.

Its something this country used to do, which is why mass murders were non-existant. Now-a-days criminals get second chances, let loose on paroll, and mentally ill are just given some pills.

When were they "non existant"?

 

[martybegan]

But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.

Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.

The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.

If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.

Same old same old Joe.

Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.

You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one. your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.

Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.

Oh, and I've already stated my solution.

Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.

Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.

YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights. Only the people, when 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states agree get to decide my rights (not even then).

Your solution is unconsitutional, and you sir are a fucking asshole.

 

[kaz]

Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place. If you want to call it punative fine. Sounds justified to me.

First of all, you're committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question." We are saying that gun laws are not working with criminals and they harm victims. You're just assuming the truth of your own position. The whole point of this thread is to expose your lame belief for what it is. Explain how it will work. It doesn't and you can't, so you just assume the truth of your own view and pontificate on it. Again, that's called begging the question.

So freedom of speech, the right to worship as you choose, protection from illegal search and seizure, Miranda, abortion, those can all be punitively taxed if government doesn't like them? Can government punitively tax the media? Can they punitively tax demonstrations? Once again you're demonstrating that liberals aren't liberal, you're authoritarians who believe in the absolute power of the State.