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

[Valox]

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.

Should your logic work both way? More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods? But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.

Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.

So, the problem is that there aren't enough guns....

 

[JoeB131]

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.

Should your logic work both way? More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods? But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.

Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

 

[Geaux4it]

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.

Should your logic work both way? More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods? But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.

Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk

Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. If you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk

Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.

-Geaux

Guy, the problem is, I am sitting no more than 100 feet from where one of you "repsonsible" gun owners blew his brains out two years ago.

Before he did that, he shot a bullet out into the courtyard of our condo complex, where I or any one of our neighbors could have been crossing that day.

You don't need a gun, and I'm tired of watching people being wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.

 

[Geaux4it]

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk

Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.

-Geaux

Guy, the problem is, I am sitting no more than 100 feet from where one of you "repsonsible" gun owners blew his brains out two years ago.

Before he did that, he shot a bullet out into the courtyard of our condo complex, where I or any one of our neighbors could have been crossing that day.

You don't need a gun, and I'm tired of watching people being wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.

And I'm tired of others telling me what I need.

MYOB

BTW- I assume you would also dislike watching people being wheeled out in body bags if they offed themselves with pills and razor blades

I have no issue with someone wanting to commit suicide. More power to them

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.

Should your logic work both way? More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods? But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.

if they are law abiding there is no reason not to have a gun

 

[JoeB131]

[

And I'm tired of others telling me what I need.

MYOB

BTW- I assume you would also dislike watching people being wheeled out in body bags if they offed themselves with pills and razor blades

I have no issue with someone wanting to commit suicide. More power to them

-Geaux

They can't accidently kill an neighbor with razorblades or pills.

the "Test Run" with this guy happened a couple of weeks before he offed himself. When the Cops arrived, he claimed that someone shot in at him, which was quickly disproved by the glass being OUTSIDE instead of inside.

Cops didn't take his gun, though. That'd be a violation of his second amendment "rights".

 

[Geaux4it]

[

And I'm tired of others telling me what I need.

MYOB

BTW- I assume you would also dislike watching people being wheeled out in body bags if they offed themselves with pills and razor blades

I have no issue with someone wanting to commit suicide. More power to them

-Geaux

They can't accidently kill an neighbor with razorblades or pills.

the "Test Run" with this guy happened a couple of weeks before he offed himself. When the Cops arrived, he claimed that someone shot in at him, which was quickly disproved by the glass being OUTSIDE instead of inside.

Cops didn't take his gun, though. That'd be a violation of his second amendment "rights".

Good ting they didn't take them. Then he would of had to find another way to kill himself

Your risk of being accidently killed by a drunk driver is far more likely than death by a stray bullet

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

According to SAF, the British newspaper 'The Telegraph' recently completed a poll relative to 6 measures those polled would like to see introduced to the House of Commons.

http://www.saf.org/viewoe.asp?id=445

Of the six suggestions that included setting a flat tax and placing a term limit on the office of Prime Minister, what drew more than 86 percent of the reader support was a proposal to repeal the handgun ban of 1997. Because this is an unscientific poll, the results will be doomed to a media black hole, but it should send a clear signal to gun prohibitionists in the United States that their habitual use of the United Kingdom as an example of domestic tranquility where guns are concerned just took a direct hit in the credibility department.

At last check, more than 20,400 people had responded to the on-line poll. Support for ending the handgun ban was at 86.4 percent, leaving all other proposals in the political dust

 

[kaz]

I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?

Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing

They were talking about you...

 

[Bern80]

[

I think you also forget WHY drugs were outlawed to start with. Because before they were made illegal, everyone was doing them. Doctors routinely recommended cocaine for children, there were a million opium addicts in a population of less than 100 Million.

Yes, all hail government, they will save us. That sucks. But compare it to present day where fighting the drugs gets us:

1) Funding serious bad guys from the Taliban in Afghanistan to drug cartels in Columbia causing destabilization of those governments and their neighbors and leaving their people living in fear.

2) Funding organized crime in the United States.

3) Causing shootouts in the streets and terrorizing inner city neighborhoods into silence.

4) Allowing massive intrusions into our privacy by the government in the name of finding drug money.

5) Spending billions and billions we don't have year after year, as opposed to taxing drugs like any other product and bringing in revenue.

Thanks government for helping! No problem is so big or so complicated that government can't make it worse. And you want to double down and do the same for guns! Good thinking.

This is the core of libertarianism, that is inherently so. Sure, if government could do my charity for me and make good decisions that expanded my liberty and made my life easier, I'd love it too. The only difference between liberals and me is that I recognize that never happens. The Obamacare disaster where Obamacare ended up helping no one but government is what happens. A libertarian is just a liberal or a conservative with their eyes open.

I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?

I mean, even the really bad ideas like Theocracy, Fascism and Communism had a few countries willing to give it a go.

Is the War on Drugs executed badly? Absolutely. They are treating a medical problem like a criminal one.

Is legallizing drugs the answer? Not unless you want your kid doing them the minute he's 18.

Yeah, cause the legality of it is what keeps so many people from doing them......moron.

 

[Bern80]

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.

Should your logic work both way? More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods? But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.

Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

And how many times more likely are people who own cars likely to get an accident than people who don't?

 

[Valox]

I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?

Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing

They were talking about you...

^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.

FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.

 

[MisterBeale]

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk

Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.

-Geaux

Guy, the problem is, I am sitting no more than 100 feet from where one of you "repsonsible" gun owners blew his brains out two years ago.

Before he did that, he shot a bullet out into the courtyard of our condo complex, where I or any one of our neighbors could have been crossing that day.

You don't need a gun, and I'm tired of watching people being wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.

Then turn you're pretty little head. Don't look.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.

Should your logic work both way? More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods? But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.

Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.

The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.

So there's that.

U.S. wars kill millions of people, yet we NEED them. Guns cause accidental death, and there is plenty of deaths from friendly fire in wars. Would JoeBlow argue that since guns are dangerous and should be done away with, therefore also ALL U.S. wars should no longer be fought, never?

 

[kaz]

I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?

Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing

They were talking about you...

^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.

FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.

So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"

Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.

Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...

 

[Valox]

Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing

They were talking about you...

^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.

FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.

So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"

Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.

Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...

Tell us how the majority is draining this country. After all, that is they typical right wing/libertarian nonsense that you people regurgitate.

 

[MisterBeale]

I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?

The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer - Answered!

0:00 - Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

3:00 - It's not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

7:39 - When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn't an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

10:39 - Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as "a slightly idealized Sweden." Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of "really-existing socialism." They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.

13:30 - While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.

15:44 - But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn't libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

19:00 - Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to "economic freedom." Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

22:32 - It's a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today's heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

It's all here if you feel so inclined to be educated. I doubt you really feel the need to throw off the blinders. I am nearly certain you are an agitator of disinformation and misinformation because you rarely, if ever listen to anyone's reasoned discussion points.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcY7SVBG-4]The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer - Answered! - YouTube[/ame]

This is the article he is critiquing;
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/

 

[kaz]

^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.

FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.

So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"

Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.

Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...

Tell us how the majority is draining this country. After all, that is they typical right wing/libertarian nonsense that you people regurgitate.

Federal Spending as a percent of the GDP, deficits as a percent of GDP, national debt as a percent of GDP, 6 years of recession...

What are you trying to say exactly? You're not really making any point. You're good with how things are going?

 

[JoeB131]

[

U.S. wars kill millions of people, yet we NEED them. Guns cause accidental death, and there is plenty of deaths from friendly fire in wars. Would JoeBlow argue that since guns are dangerous and should be done away with, therefore also ALL U.S. wars should no longer be fought, never?

Actually, I think we haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII.

Most wars are unnecessary.

Has nothing to do with the fact that most civilians aren't trained and lack the judgment to own a gun.