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

[candycorn]

[


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.

Stop making sense.

 

[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...

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one. Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates. You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.

Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Stop making sense.

No it does not make sense. Doctors/Surgeons perform procedures, they get licensed. However, I can buy a knife without a license, I can use that knife to cut celery, or to defend myself. I don't need training or a license to do either.

Police get training because they perform procedures, they get licensed. However, I can buy a gun without a license, I can use that gun for decoration, or sell it for profit, or for fun, or to defend myself. I don't need training or a license to do either, though training and licenses are available if I so desire.

You two are grossly confused because you are incapable of discerning the difference between an inanimate object, such as a knife, gun, or other weapons, and self determining human beings that perform licensed tasks for their customers.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Stop making sense.

Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Think about it...

Is this a riddle? Government and guns!

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

You asked me about that. How would I know; I'm a newby? Better question, how would you know? He could be putting on a "good" show to advance his fanatic anti-gun agenda.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Stop making sense.

Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.

Yeah, after all, what's the problem.

We only murder 10,000 people a year in this country...

If you're an average person, you may meet 10,000 people in your lifetime according to some estimates...

Imagine all of them dead. That is the yearly reality of our gun violence non-problem.

And your response?

If you get shot, it's your fault for not shooting the other guy first...is that just about it?

 

[RKMBrown]

Stop making sense.

Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.

Yeah, after all, what's the problem.

We only murder 10,000 people a year in this country...

If you're an average person, you may meet 10,000 people in your lifetime according to some estimates...

Imagine all of them dead. That is the yearly reality of our gun violence non-problem.

And your response?

If you get shot, it's your fault for not shooting the other guy first...is that just about it?

I'm fifty years old. I know two people who decided to end their lives, both used a gun. They did not need any training to figure out how to do it.

I've never met, nor do I know anyone that was killed or even shot with a gun by another person outside of military personnel.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one. Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates. You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.

Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.

Overtly authoratarian?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong. What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).

The responses have been laughable at best. The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.

Yet that is your response.

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out. Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right. And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system. Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000? What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?

I guess some minds are just closed to logic. Too bad.

Out.

 

[Edgetho]

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one. Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates. You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.

Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.

Overtly authoratarian?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong. What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).

The responses have been laughable at best. The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.

Yet that is your response.

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out. Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right. And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system. Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000? What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?

I guess some minds are just closed to logic. Too bad.

Out.

It is your mind that is closed.

Of the 10,000 deaths you mention, how many were caused by LEGAL Gun Owners LEGALLY Carrying a LEGAL gun?

A fraction. Maybe 1% - 2%. If that.

What pisses us off is that you, and your idiot fellow-travelers, refuse to address the other 98%.

How about enforcing the Laws we already have? There's a thought. How about it?

Especially in the high-crime, everybody's got a Mac-10, gang-banger ghettos that produce NOTHING but violence and obama voters......

Do something about that and we'll talk.

Until then, you're just another dishonest dimocrap scumbag douche

 

[RKMBrown]

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one. Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates. You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.

Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.

Overtly authoratarian?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong. What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).

The responses have been laughable at best. The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.

Yet that is your response.

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out. Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right. And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system. Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000? What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?

I guess some minds are just closed to logic. Too bad.

Out.

350,000,000 / 10000 = 3500

That means by average 1 in 3500 people are murdered with a gun. It also means 1 in 3500 guns will be used to commit a murder.

I'm gonna guess you don't understand statistics. Now recognize that all of those murders are committed by criminals. Yes, murder is against the law. None of those murders are committed by non-criminals.

So what you are doing is trying to punish 3499 people because 1 in 3500 is a criminal that might use 1 of 3500 guns to commit the crime of murder. Further you think it's because guns have a mind of their own and transform 1 in 3500 into a criminal.

 

[kaz]

Is this a riddle? Government and guns!

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

You asked me about that. How would I know; I'm a newby? Better question, how would you know? He could be putting on a "good" show to advance his fanatic anti-gun agenda.

Joe always loves government, it's not just guns.

 

[Bern80]

Stop making sense.

Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.

Yeah, after all, what's the problem.

We only murder 10,000 people a year in this country...

If you're an average person, you may meet 10,000 people in your lifetime according to some estimates...

Imagine all of them dead. That is the yearly reality of our gun violence non-problem.

And your response?

If you get shot, it's your fault for not shooting the other guy first...is that just about it?

No. My point is you don't take guns away, financially impede them or negatively stigmatize tens of millions of law abiding gun owners to an extremely naive attempt to prevent 10,000 deaths. Like it or not that is NO different than saying we should do the exact same thing to people who have the audacity to own cars because they kill THREE TIMES as many people a year. Proving your position on guns is irrational and dispoportionate to their impact on society relative to other things that are involved in the same number deaths each year.

What is more bothersome than your position on guns, candy, is that your argument is inconsistent. You don't apply the same rationale to other things that are statistically comparable in terms of the deaths they cause. That should be proof enough for anyone that you have an illegitimate argument.

 

[kaz]

The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.

Yet that is your response.

No, that is your delusion. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Either your mind is closed or your ears are, because this point has been addressed repeatedly and that was never the argument. In fact, the point is she WON'T do that, not that she will.

Criminals are going to go behind wal mart to buy an illegal gun, and they aren't going to be dissuaded by a couple hundred bucks. Your woman may not know about vic, but you're condemning her to become one one.

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year

Once again, you are begging the question. I'm tired of explaining that logical fallacy to you, google it this time.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

You asked me about that. How would I know; I'm a newby? Better question, how would you know? He could be putting on a "good" show to advance his fanatic anti-gun agenda.

Joe always loves government, it's not just guns.

He loves mental masturbation too!

 

[Bern80]

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one. Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates. You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.

Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.

Overtly authoratarian?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong. What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).

The responses have been laughable at best. The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.

Yet that is your response.

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out. Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right. And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system. Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000? What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?

I guess some minds are just closed to logic. Too bad.

Out.

you have zero business trying to persuade anyone that your position is logical. Your position is anything but that. You presume that 10,000 deaths would go to 0 if we don't let people have guns. That's false. Everyone, including you, knows that. We could also prevent 35,000 deaths if people weren't allowed to own cars. We could prevent a few hundred thousand deaths a year by legislating how much fatty food a person can consume. But we don't do those things in a free society. In a free society we accept that there are risks and don't try to legislate them all out of existence as doing so means you are no longer free.

 

[kaz]

you have zero business trying to persuade anyone that your position is logical. Your position is anything but that. You presume that 10,000 deaths would go to 0 if we don't let people have guns. That's false, everyone including you, knows that.

Sadly, that's a typical liberal argument.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.

I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.

But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.

 

[Bern80]

[

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.

Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.

I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.

But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.

How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

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.

Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.

I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.

But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.

Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

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.

Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.

I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.

But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.

No idiot, the Israeli's immediately started ethnic cleansing days after they were given a homeland.

Too bad THEY weren't like Great Britain and controlled guns.