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

[kaz]

You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today. It won't. The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply

In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.

Why?

If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?

So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.

It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.

And someone like me will start producing guns at a cost of 1.5 weeks pay and supply all the guns the private sector wants. Think Prohibition.

Well, best of luck to you I guess.

Well think about it. If it costs say $200 to make a particular gun, then if you were successful in driving the legal price to $500, $1,000 or more then there's more and more incentive to manufacture them or import them and sell them. Like with pot, cigarettes and everything else they try to warp market prices with taxes.

And again, who do you affect? Honest citizens thinking long term buy fewer guns, but that doesn't phase criminals. They are risking jail and crime anyway. They aren't going to stop buying guns just because you raise the price.

All your solutions just continue the current policies which are catastrophic to honest citizens and a slap on the wrist to criminals, which means the criminals are armed, and they are the only ones.

 

[kaz]

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

Think about this one ed. So if I buy a gun to protect myself, then I and all other people who do so are the ones who have to pay the victims of the people we bought a gun to protect ourselves from.

You fundamentally don't understand the difference between people who commit criminal acts and victims of criminal acts. Your solution is that if I want to buy a gun to protect myself from criminals, then I'm the one you're forcing to pay the victims of criminal acts for the crimes that were committed against them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

According to the CDC, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2012.

Why would you compare automobile ... accidents ... with intentional use of firearms?

And even if you do include intentional use of firearms, the point is there are 11,078 people who were limited by government in their ability to defend themselves. The point of the thread, read the op, is how do you keep guns from those 11,078 murderers? A point you don't address at all.

Basically your point is a complete zero.

There's

Most auto accidents are due to one or more drivers failing to obey the law - speeding, failing to yield, driving under the influence, etc.

Homicide is not the only tort wherein a death or injury is the result of the use of a firearm; gun deaths by accident, negligence and foolishness, for example.

Why presume each murder was committed by only one individual - likely many murders are committed by one individual.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.

And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.

Guns are specifically designed to kill people. That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved. And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.

There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.

And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.

Guns are specifically designed to kill people. That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved. And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.

There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.

Wrong. Guns are designed to fire bullets. People kill people, guns are just a tool they use. Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet? I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.

 

[kaz]

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.

And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.

Guns are specifically designed to kill people. That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved. And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.

There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.

You are so full of Shinola. So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you? Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.

 

[kaz]

According to the CDC, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2012.

Why would you compare automobile ... accidents ... with intentional use of firearms?

And even if you do include intentional use of firearms, the point is there are 11,078 people who were limited by government in their ability to defend themselves. The point of the thread, read the op, is how do you keep guns from those 11,078 murderers? A point you don't address at all.

Basically your point is a complete zero.

There's

Most auto accidents are due to one or more drivers failing to obey the law - speeding, failing to yield, driving under the influence, etc.

There's a difference between failing to follow the law and it causing an unintended death (probably of themselves more than anyone else), and intentionally murdering someone on purpose.

Homicide is not the only tort wherein a death or injury is the result of the use of a firearm; gun deaths by accident, negligence and foolishness, for example.

And of the people killed in accidents, guns is a small percentage. One of our astute posters pointed out that 4 times as many kids are killed accidentally by being poisoned. Why are guns being singled out for the requirement when it's well down the list of causes.

Why presume each murder was committed by only one individual - likely many murders are committed by one individual.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that obvious point as it was obvious and it doesn't change anything related to the argument. I still don't think it was necessary.

 

[RKMBrown]

Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.

And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.

Guns are specifically designed to kill people. That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved. And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.

There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.

You are so full of Shinola. So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you? Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.

Which gun company will be the first to build guns that target democrats?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Wrong. Guns are designed to fire bullets. People kill people, guns are just a tool they use. Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet? I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.

The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person. That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!

And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.

10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons. That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You are so full of Shinola. So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you? Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.

I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.

And I was in the military for 11 years. Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.

Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.

 

[kaz]

[

Wrong. Guns are designed to fire bullets. People kill people, guns are just a tool they use. Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet? I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.

The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person. That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!

And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.

10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons. That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.

1) How many guns have been used to kill a person?

2) How many guns have been used to shoot skeet (or other target practice)?

3) how many guns have been carried in case they're needed for defense?

4) how many guns have been used to hunt?

1 is totally dwarfed by 2, 3 AND 4. You know nothing about what you're talking about, then you never do. Obviously you're projecting. One day there'll be another mass shooting in Utah or a Jewish section of New York. They'll blow away the shooter, and coincidentally, you'll stop posting...

 

[kaz]

[

You are so full of Shinola. So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you? Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.

I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.

And I was in the military for 11 years. Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.

Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.

So what about instead of repeating your mindless drivel that doesn't contradict the op, you address the question in the op?

When we can't keep pot, which is totally illegal, out of the hands of any high schoolers anywhere, how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals everywhere?

All you're doing is making sure that all 32,000 people die without being able to defend themselves. How many would be alive if leftists like you didn't value your pompous sanctimony over their lives?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

People want to protect their loved ones?

So does Joe, he wants to protect government.

He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

You are so full of Shinola. So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you? Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.

I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.

And I was in the military for 11 years. Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.

Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.

Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.

Moron.

 

[kaz]

People want to protect their loved ones?

So does Joe, he wants to protect government.

He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.

Think about it...

 

[kaz]

[

You are so full of Shinola. So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you? Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.

I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.

And I was in the military for 11 years. Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.

Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.

Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.

Moron.

Technically, he's not a moron, he's a liberal.

You have to think like a leftist to get this one.

1) 19,000 people killed themselves with guns.

2) Joe doesn't like guns.

3) Therefore, to a leftist, guns caused the deaths, and if the guns hadn't bee there...

... no deaths! Bada boom bada bing. Get it now?

OK, I concede the moron thing...

 

[candycorn]

[

Wrong. Guns are designed to fire bullets. People kill people, guns are just a tool they use. Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet? I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.

The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person. That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!

And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.

10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons. That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.

Correct.

 

[kaz]

[

Wrong. Guns are designed to fire bullets. People kill people, guns are just a tool they use. Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet? I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.

The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person. That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!

And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.

10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons. That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.

Correct.

So why don't you address my point then.

More guns shoot targets (skeet, trap, ...) than kill anyone.

More guns are carried for defense than kill anyone. Since it does say shooting, let's consider the firing range here.

More guns are used for hunting than kill anyone.

So, listing three things that are more common for shooters than killing people, how can killing people be the #1 use of shooting guns?

Frankly if Joe thinks the #1 use of guns is "killing" people, then for once I hope he's a liar when he says he was in the military. I come from a military family and the guy's views of guns is sick. You're just a liberal elitist who lives in a vacuum from reality. No offense.

 

[candycorn]

I heard the fed background checks will stop at midnight and gun sales should stop.

Silver lining.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So does Joe, he wants to protect government.

He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.

Think about it...

Is this a riddle? Government and guns!