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

[kaz]

kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons?

Your plan is to make sure that when a nut job walks in they can go from room to room blowing people away and not meet any resistance.

You have no plan to get the gun out of the criminals hands other than begging the question by assuming that gun laws will keep the guns out the hands of criminals when they clearly don't. You just want to make sure the maximum number of teachers and children get blown away. And your plan is working great.

My plan is to give someone the chance to stop them.

It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?

As you have no long term memory, your endless discussion on mental health were not me, we've never discussed it. My view though is I do think we should keep people locked up once they show themselves to be a danger. However, I don't think it changes the equation that you want to make sure that if they are nuts and haven't killed anyone yet once they go off the deepend that nobody is a threat to shoot back like you do with other criminals.

Your plan does work great. Every nut job has been able to kill a bunch more people while terrified victims run and hide under tables. Congratulations, your carnage has been spectacular. And women being wasted by their ex-husbands, you're doing a great job of that too. And inner cities like Chicago and DC are war zones where only the bad guys have the guns. You're doing a great job.

 

[kaz]

kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?

That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?

It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?

What you and Joe don't understand is cause and effect. Societies that have gun cultures have guns, societies that don't have gun cultures have fewer guns. Societies that don't have gun cultures the people don't particularly want them and the government controls them. Societies that don't have gun cultures are less ethnically diverse and outsiders stand out. Societies that don't have gun cultures people react if someone does stand out.

Just saying you can take a gun culture in a diverse culture and slap gun laws on them and they will work because France is just a stupid argument.

 

[kaz]

You're missing the point (which is typical for you liberal idiots) you can make a thousand laws making it harder to buy guns, the only people it will affect is law-abiding citizens, criminals by definition DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

The laws currently on the books are not adequate in the sense that it doesn't look at the mental health history of the purchaser, this could be changed by re-writing the HIPAA law and allowing for a person with a history of mental illness to be included in those that cannot legally buy a firearm. Other than that, the background checks are quite adequate.

That's the point, in a nutshell. Joe, Candy, Mona, none of them have an answer for it, which is why they continue to evade the question.

 

[kaz]

I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.

Actually the op is asking you how gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals since all you are doing now is keeping them out of the hands of honest citizens. I'm saying you cannot keep them out of the hands of criminals, they don't care about your laws. Then I point out that our drug laws don't keep pot away from high school kids. Not only can gun runners do the same thing, but in fact drug runners can import and sell drugs using their existing infrastructure.

Your answer is that you want to work harder to keep guns away from honest citizens. Candy mentioned it's going to take a while. Joe thinks if he's arrogant enough we'll fold. Your belief you're addressing the op is misguided. You're just assuring criminals you're doing everything to make sure they are the only ones with guns.

 

[Bern80]

kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?

That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?

It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?

Shit like what doesn't happen? They don't have people with sever mental issues? They don't have bullied children who are angry at the world? Those conditinos are somehow tied to the existence of guns. Thanks for proving my point. Again your response focuses on the inanimate object rather than the person who actually committed the act of violence.

 

[martybegan]

kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?

I believe the HIPAA laws needs to be looked at. I think a doctor should be able to release information about a person with a history of mental illness, with the blessings of the court of course. Then that person would show up on a background check when trying to purchase a firearm. This will not stop the mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms but it will help.

As for the school shooting, you need to get rid of the "no gun zone" and allow teachers and parents on campus to carry guns as long as the states concealed carry laws are met.

It is naïve to think that all gun deaths can be prevented. They can't, but to quote Thomas Jefferson, "an armed society is a polite society".


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,

You have any relevant quotes that aren't from 200 years ago? Geez, In 1776, people may have needed to be armed at all times, but today? No. Well, now that you have 300,000,000 weapons out there, maybe, but you have to start somewhere... I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.

Those pesky 1700's documents.... who needs em???

/sarcasm.

 

[Bern80]

I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.

Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.

It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.

 

[kaz]

I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.

Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.

It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.

There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun. Why didn't they ignore the law and have them? Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers. They would have criminal records. So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that. Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.

The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts. It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens. The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.

What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws. The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.

 

[MonaGonna]

I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.

Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.

It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.

There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun. Why didn't they ignore the law and have them? Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers. They would have criminal records. So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that. Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.

The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts. It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens. The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.

What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws. The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.

It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.

There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun. Why didn't they ignore the law and have them? Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers. They would have criminal records. So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that. Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.

The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts. It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens. The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.

What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws. The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

 

[MonaGonna]

There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun. Why didn't they ignore the law and have them? Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers. They would have criminal records. So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that. Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.

The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts. It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens. The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.

What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws. The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

 

[TemplarKormac]

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

No. Just no. There will be no tweaks to the 2nd Amendment to sate this need for an assault weapons ban.

 

[kaz]

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law. I mean who could question your basis for arguing that? Criminals? Break the law? I mean they're very adamant on that point. They really believe in the law.

 

[kaz]

Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.

It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.

There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun. Why didn't they ignore the law and have them? Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers. They would have criminal records. So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that. Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.

The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts. It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens. The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.

What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws. The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

Your plan is that by keeping hands out of the hands of honest citizens and doing nothing about guns in the hands of criminals we will be safer. Naivety is not an admirable trait. Congrats on all the kids and teachers whos bodies were splattered over the walls of Connecticut, must have been a very proud moment for your smugness.

 

[MonaGonna]

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law. I mean who could question your basis for arguing that? Criminals? Break the law? I mean they're very adamant on that point. They really believe in the law.

If we can at least agree that 9.000+ gun deaths a year is way too many, then I'm at least willing to try things, debate different ideas... you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

The last year on record only about 400 murders were committed with ANY type of rifle. That INCLUDES your supposed assault version. SO out of 10000 firearms murders 400 were committed with rifles. Since we know most of those rifles were not the supposed assault version you are claiming that getting rid of a rifle will effect less then 2 percent of all murders.

That is your great plan?

Once again for the slow and stupid the Courts have routinely ruled that a punitive tax on a right is an infringement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law. I mean who could question your basis for arguing that? Criminals? Break the law? I mean they're very adamant on that point. They really believe in the law.

If we can at least agree that 9.000+ gun deaths a year is way too many, then I'm at least willing to try things, debate different ideas... you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.

You are beyond biased and have a closed mind yourself. I do not agree that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population dying to protect a right is bad. NOT one thing you have suggested would have ANY impact on the criminal use of firearms. It would not prevent one criminal from obtaining a firearm.

 

[MonaGonna]

Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.

So given that fact, what would be your solution?

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

The last year on record only about 400 murders were committed with ANY type of rifle. That INCLUDES your supposed assault version. SO out of 10000 firearms murders 400 were committed with rifles. Since we know most of those rifles were not the supposed assault version you are claiming that getting rid of a rifle will effect less then 2 percent of all murders.

That is your great plan?

Once again for the slow and stupid the Courts have routinely ruled that a punitive tax on a right is an infringement.

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.

 

[kaz]

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law. I mean who could question your basis for arguing that? Criminals? Break the law? I mean they're very adamant on that point. They really believe in the law.

If we can at least agree that 9.000+ gun deaths a year is way too many, then I'm at least willing to try things, debate different ideas... you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.

I am not arguing for status quo. We need to end the ridiculous restrictions and bans that prevent people from defending themselves and protecting their families, liberty and property.

There will be no more criminals or gun crimes because of eliminating restrictions, criminals already freely get guns. It's their victims now who are restricted, let's end that travesty.

 

[Steven_R]

you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.

Nope. I want the status quo, where free citizens aren't treated like criminals just because they want to own something that someone might possibly could maybe someday eventually abuse.

You want to restrict everyone based on the actions of a few. I want to punish the few when they get out of line and leave everyone else alone.