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

[Bern80]

[


Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year. Every year, we have 10 9/11's.

And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.

We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.

Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.

Yes, it does.

But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors. We allow doctors who screw up to be sued. We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).

Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes. For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.

So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,

Only licensed people would have them.
They'd have to have insurance.
There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.

But we don't ban doctors. We don't ban cars. We don't ban cholesterol. All of which are involved in more deaths than guns. In the cases of hospitals, those steps are taken because of the deaths they cause. Safety is focused on in cars because of the deaths they are involved. Has it ever occured to you the reason more safety precautions aren't taken with firearms is there overall threat to people is relatively miniscule? Again this for a device that you claim is designed only to kill people.

 

[JoeB131]

Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.

Yes, it does.

But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors. We allow doctors who screw up to be sued. We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).

Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes. For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.

So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,

Only licensed people would have them.
They'd have to have insurance.
There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.

But we don't ban doctors. We don't ban cars. We don't ban cholesterol. All of which are involved in more deaths than guns. In the cases of hospitals, those steps are taken because of the deaths they cause. Safety is focused on in cars because of the deaths they are involved. Has it ever occured to you the reason more safety precautions aren't taken with firearms is there overall threat to people is relatively miniscule? Again this for a device that you claim is designed only to kill people.

Which is exactly why only qualified professionals should have them.

We don't let every asshole in the world perform surgery and prescribe drugs. We only let TRAINED, LICENSED professionals do it.

And frankly, that's what should be done with guns.

1) You have to show a really good reason why you need one.
2) You have to be trained licensed and insured.
3) If you are involved in misconduct, the privilages are REVOKED.

Which is pretty much how they do it in the rest of the industrialized world, and it works just fine.

Only in the US do we say, "Yup, Cleetus, the Founding Fathers told up we could bear arms, and arm bears, yup, yup, yup."

 

[Steven_R]

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.

 

[kaz]

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!

Go back and read the quote, I was saying that Joe loves government...

 

[kaz]

Correct.

Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.

Only...10000

Wow, that was so witty...

Not.

He addresses your point on the percentage of guns, and you play the redefine words game. I guess we should have known better than to have a grown up conversation with a poster who called "candycane."

 

[JoeB131]

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.

I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.

Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.

In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.

Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.

 

[Edgetho]

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.

I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.

Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.

In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.

Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.

It doesn't matter what you think, bitch. The SCOTUS thinks we DO have the right to bear arms.

Suck on it.

 

[kaz]

However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point. That demographic usually votes Democratic. The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat. But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.

Yet another reason liberals like Candy oppose voter ID laws. It disenfranchises the criminal vote, who are less likely to have a valid ID, who vote strongly in favor of gun laws. It's like when I lived in California and they had a vote to legalize Indian Casinos. The socons teamed up with the Vegas casinos to oppose it. The Vegas casinos because they didn't want the competition. Criminals want to keep them illegal so they can sell them. Just like alcohol in prohibition and drugs today. The socons are law and order, the criminals are just law...

 

[kaz]

[

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...

Guy, why do you keep going on about "the jews". I don't.

Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year. Every year, we have 10 9/11's.

And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.

We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.

Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them. If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.

But what about you stop deflecting and address the point? I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.

 

[kaz]

Do you know why we can't keep pot out of the hands of kids?

No one cares enough to enforce the laws, which are kind of stupid

That statement is stupid. Government spends billions on Coast Guard, airlines, police and committing incredible intrusions into our freedom and privacy arresting drug dealers, going after money laundering. Nobody's trying? You're just trying to clear the incredible hurdle of looking more and more clueless with every post.

The reason drug laws don't work is because the PEOPLE don't respect them. As an authoritarian, you won't grasp that, but it's the same with guns. No one will respect the laws except liberals who already oppose gun laws. And in typical do as I say not as I do, they'll probably buy them too.

 

[kaz]

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.

Most of those gun suicides wouldn't happen if guns weren't available.

Talk about word parsing. Even if you were right there would be fewer "gun suicides," suicide by poison, hanging and jumping is so much better for society...

 

[kaz]

[

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...

Guy, why do you keep going on about "the jews". I don't.

Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year. Every year, we have 10 9/11's.

And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.

We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.

Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.

Bee stings kill 5,000 people a year, that's two 9/11s. Let's destroy bees! Bees are al qaeda!

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Most of those gun suicides wouldn't happen if guns weren't available.

Talk about word parsing. Even if you were right there would be fewer "gun suicides," suicide by poison, hanging and jumping is so much better for society...

they are like that on most topics

why expect any different on the topic of suicide

 

[kaz]

Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.

Yes, it does.

But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors. We allow doctors who screw up to be sued. We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).

Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes. For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.

So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,

Only licensed people would have them.
They'd have to have insurance.
There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.

So if we put the same additional effort into ending medical malpractice, there is the potential to save many more lives!

But seriously, you're begging the question again. The question is how you're going to actually start making gun laws work, you just keep assuming the truth of your own position they do. And the reality is you're advocating murdering people by preventing them from defending themselves.

 

[Steven_R]

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.

I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.

Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.

In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.

Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.

Why wouldn't they pass the smell test? In Germany, Scientology isn't considered an approved religion. Many European nations have censored books, or don't allow sales of banned books. Certain political parties or speech are illegal in parts of Europe.

Either rights mean something or they don't. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association are all basic human rights that Europeans have only at the pleasure of their governments. What are your feelings on those restrictions?

I don't pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights I like and which ones are politically expendable. I love them all and fight for them all just as fervently as I do the Second.

 

[kaz]

I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms"

Hey Joe, funny how they wrote a 1st and a 3rd through 10th amendments and skipped the second one, isn't it? I never got that either, wtf?

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test

Here's what doesn't pass the smell test.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.

The founding fathers wrote in the bill of rights, which protect individual freedoms from government, that GOVERNMENT can't deprive itself of the right to bear arms. Talk about the smell test, that argument reeks.



I'm sure they were sweating the idea that government might take away it's own guns until they came up with that one...

 

[Bern80]

Yes, it does.

But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors. We allow doctors who screw up to be sued. We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).

Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes. For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.

So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,

Only licensed people would have them.
They'd have to have insurance.
There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.

But we don't ban doctors. We don't ban cars. We don't ban cholesterol. All of which are involved in more deaths than guns. In the cases of hospitals, those steps are taken because of the deaths they cause. Safety is focused on in cars because of the deaths they are involved. Has it ever occured to you the reason more safety precautions aren't taken with firearms is there overall threat to people is relatively miniscule? Again this for a device that you claim is designed only to kill people.

Which is exactly why only qualified professionals should have them.

We don't let every asshole in the world perform surgery and prescribe drugs. We only let TRAINED, LICENSED professionals do it.

And frankly, that's what should be done with guns.

1) You have to show a really good reason why you need one.
2) You have to be trained licensed and insured.
3) If you are involved in misconduct, the privilages are REVOKED.

Which is pretty much how they do it in the rest of the industrialized world, and it works just fine.

Only in the US do we say, "Yup, Cleetus, the Founding Fathers told up we could bear arms, and arm bears, yup, yup, yup."

Again none of the above is true. And the facts simply don't support your postion. 1) 'good reason' is entirely subjective. I think haveing a efficient tool to gather meat is a good reason. And doesn't your number one criteria negate two and three? You've already stated you don't think there is a good reason for anyone but law enforcement and military to have guns. Again this need is sort of selfish of you if you think about it. You know that automobiles kill more people but since it would inconvenience you to ban those your not suggesting that. Basically telling us those deaths are acceptable given the inconvenience to you of not having one. Though I don't want to get hung up on this because again I don't need a good reason. The statistics show that the overhwhelming majority of gun owners don't kill or use their guns in violence toward other people. More people are more dangerous with their cars than guns. Those statistics reflect that the reality is a there no good reason for a law abiding citizen NOT to be allowed to possess a gun.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.

I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.

Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.

In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.

Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.

What are you even doing posting in a thread when you haven't even a basic college education on the bill of rights? Facts are facts, and you have yours wrong. I can see now I don't need to read any of your posts any more. You need to go back to school buddy.

 

[Bern80]

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.

I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.

Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.

In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.

Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.

Why do you base your opinion on whether someone should have a gun, or anything for that matter, on whether they need it? We live in a country where we have the freedom to pursue wants, not needs. Look at what you're really saying when you say that. You're essentially saying you don't believe in individual freedom. To have individual freedom I need to have the capacity to defend myself. You're also saying you don't believe in that either. The second ammendment is not about just militias. Read some of the Federalist papers about the subject. Hamilton in Federalist 29 said

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Madison in Federalist 46 wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

In Federalist 28 he confirms the right of people to defend themselves against tyranical government;

The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

All of this points to the fact that purpose of the second ammendment was for the right to defend oneself, primarily against tyrannical government. And another point of evidence is that it is the SECOND ammendment. Only second to the freedom of speech was the right to defend one's individual freedom.

 

[candycorn]

However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point. That demographic usually votes Democratic. The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat. But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.

Yet another reason liberals like Candy oppose voter ID laws. It disenfranchises the criminal vote, who are less likely to have a valid ID, who vote strongly in favor of gun laws. It's like when I lived in California and they had a vote to legalize Indian Casinos. The socons teamed up with the Vegas casinos to oppose it. The Vegas casinos because they didn't want the competition. Criminals want to keep them illegal so they can sell them. Just like alcohol in prohibition and drugs today. The socons are law and order, the criminals are just law...

I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.

You have no idea what you are talking about.