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

[Bern80]

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.

No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.

Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns. If you guys say you can't keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.

I , for one, am not saying that. I don't see many others on here saying that either.

 

[JoeB131]

[

the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

You mean it won, but because the Senate has goofy rules requiring supermajorities, the NRA was able to bully cowards into letting children be murdered.

Good job, everyone. Good job.

 

[JoeB131]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

No they haven't all have murders and crimes committed with firearms.

 

[JoeB131]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

No they haven't all have murders and crimes committed with firearms.

NO, actually, they really have... as few crimes ARE committed with firearms in those countries.

 

[Geaux4it]

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

You mean it won, but because the Senate has goofy rules requiring supermajorities, the NRA was able to bully cowards into letting children be murdered.

Good job, everyone. Good job.

Please.... Not for the children mantra... You have to admit, that's pretty played out already

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

Basically your plan is to endlessly commit the logical fallacy of begging the question while sounding more snide and condescending than anyone else while doing it. Thereby winning in your own mind.

Three puts the gun manufacturers out of business so you can play the game you didn't make them "illegal" you just ended anyone's ability to manufacture them. With 1 and 2 you are following the same strategy as the war on drugs, which doesn't work, but according to you will work for guns when it doesn't work with drugs. Which is the question in the op you keep ignoring that the thread is based on.

But you do through out the word, "France." As if that's supposed to mean anything.

This is simple, even to an arrogant dumb ass like you. Drug dealers are already freely importing drugs with only occasional arrests, which is just the cost of doing business. Not only could gun dealers do the same thing, but drug dealers could do it themselves.

As the cost of guns goes up, they bring them into the country (assuming you are effective eliminating the domestic guns). Then criminals buy them. "France" is not an answer to why that would work.

 

[kaz]

You mean it won, but because the Senate has goofy rules requiring supermajorities, the NRA was able to bully cowards into letting children be murdered.

Good job, everyone. Good job.

Yes, their parents were unable to protect them. Well done on that. They were slaughtered for your idiotology. You can put that in your e-mail sig, any number of deaths are worth the arrogant, smug grin on your face.

 

[kaz]

There were armed guards at Columbine. That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan

There was a police force at VA Tech. That didn't stop Cho.

Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES! That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.

They knew who had guns and where they were, and they went somewhere else to slaughter people. Again, good job on that, making sure carnage was maximized. Hey, people dies, but you feel smug and superior, totally worth it...

 

[Steven_R]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

Let's say you get your way and gun ownership is outlawed. I'm not giving up my guns. Are you personally going to kick in my door to get them or are you just going to let other people's sons and husbands take the risk to satisfy your moral indignation? How many dead cops is it worth to disarm me and people like me?

 

[kaz]

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.

There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians.

Right, if there were no guns, the suicides and domestic murders you are counting would not have happened, you'd have saves all those lives.

When I was in my 20s I remember hearing stats like this, and it made me wonder. Until I saw the reverse stats of how many crimes are averted with no shots fired, which completely flipped the equation.

The bottom line is that once again, liberalism is about removing choice. If I get my way, you can still make your own choice, if you get your way, mine is removed. Then you look at government's role in crime. They do not prevent crime, they are there to draw a line around you or your dead relatives, conduct some interviews and if you're really lucky they will figure out who did it and put them away for probably at the most a decade or two.

Government does not protect us, and you are making sure we cannot protect ourselves. Then you talk about how we're responsible for the crimes committed with guns, which you have no actual plan to get rid of other than the policies that don't work on drugs and endlessly repeating the word "France."

I see why you're so smug. Not.

 

[kaz]

[

the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

Again, begging the question. You assume the truth of your position that if we do what doesn't work with drugs with guns then we can assume that it will work. Which makes us responsible for those deaths. The question is how do we address the issue. We are saying you are wrong, not that we don't care. In fact it's you who doesn't care because your solution has been proven to not work. And your only explanation is the word, "France."

 

[kaz]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

Let's say you get your way and gun ownership is outlawed. I'm not giving up my guns. Are you personally going to kick in my door to get them or are you just going to let other people's sons and husbands take the risk to satisfy your moral indignation? How many dead cops is it worth to disarm me and people like me?

He's going to look down his nose at you and think in his mind how superior he is. Though in fairness he's going to do that no matter what you do or don't do...

 

[Bern80]

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? You really are out to lunch.

And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.

 

[Bern80]

1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.

Guy, this isn't complicated. Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!

No they haven't all have murders and crimes committed with firearms.

NO, actually, they really have... as few crimes ARE committed with firearms in those countries.

And very few are commited in this country also. How much of a derp da derp are you that you can't figure this out? A country that doesn't allow posession of firearms AT ALL. Still has people killing other people with firearms. Your goal remains inconsistant and immoral. You will gladly remove the things that are involved in death that won't pose an inconvience to you. But you are completely against getting rid of things like automobiles that would be inconvenient for you to do without.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Basically your plan is to endlessly commit the logical fallacy of begging the question while sounding more snide and condescending than anyone else while doing it. Thereby winning in your own mind.

Three puts the gun manufacturers out of business so you can play the game you didn't make them "illegal" you just ended anyone's ability to manufacture them. With 1 and 2 you are following the same strategy as the war on drugs, which doesn't work, but according to you will work for guns when it doesn't work with drugs. Which is the question in the op you keep ignoring that the thread is based on.

Guns are a lot harder to manufacture than drugs... and again, everyone else has alrady figured this out...

America is like the Class Retard who keeps writing "2+2=Cat" when everyone else got "4" and are laughing at him.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? You really are out to lunch.

And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.

If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.

If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.

Case in point. Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.

You know who is oppossing it? The NRA.

 

[Geaux4it]

Folks are right. It's about the children and their rights

-Geaux

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[
Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? You really are out to lunch.

And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.

If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.

If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.

Case in point. Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.

You know who is oppossing it? The NRA.

So what? Do you agree with minimum sentences on all things or just your pet peeves? How about zero tolerance on all things not just your pet peeves? Some people believe minimum sentences are for the lazy and the cowardly. How about they pass a law provide sentence guidelines and leave it to the judge to decide?

 

[JoeB131]

[

So what? Do you agree with minimum sentences on all things or just your pet peeves? How about zero tolerance on all things not just your pet peeves? Some people believe minimum sentences are for the lazy and the cowardly. How about they pass a law provide sentence guidelines and leave it to the judge to decide?

No, actually, I really think if you commit a crime with a gun, you need to go to jail for a long time and never get a gun again.

Things the NRA is perfectly fine with.

And why shouldn't they be. Not only do crooks buy guns, usually without much a legal hassle, but they keep people like you so scared you want them, too.