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

[Pogo]

The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?

This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.

Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux

probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe. Nice going

This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.

 

[Spoonman]

Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux

probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe. Nice going

This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.

you tell me how limiting magazine capacity keeps guns out of the hands of criminals? how banning assault style weapons keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. how nay restrictive law that has been passed keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[kaz]

Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux

probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe. Nice going

This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

That argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being that you are only counting guns and not who has them. Criminals have them now and they will have them. What you said deflects from that we are allowing the victims to have them, and you are not.

Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.

That has nothing to do with allowing people to defend themselves, it's a ridiculous analogy.

Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.

People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.

Seriously, when criminals shoot at us, shooting back makes us as bad as they are and doubles the damage. That's what you believe? Seriously.

 

[Geaux4it]

Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux

probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe. Nice going

This is the issue. Shooters keep going to "gun free zones." Because ... they know there will be no guns.

Indeed

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux

probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe. Nice going

This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

Um, well it is the answer

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe. Nice going

This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

That argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being that you are only counting guns and not who has them. Criminals have them now and they will have them. What you said deflects from that we are allowing the victims to have them, and you are not.

"Who has them" is irrelevant. You're trying to get to the "good guy with a gun/bad guy with a gun" fantasy, which is another fallacy of dichotomy. Everybody on "my" side is the good guy. Doesn't work.

Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.

That has nothing to do with allowing people to defend themselves, it's a ridiculous analogy.

It's a perfect analogy but yes, it has nothing to do with people defending themselves. It has to do with creating the situation in the first place.

Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.

People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.

No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.

Seriously, when criminals shoot at us, shooting back makes us as bad as they are and doubles the damage. That's what you believe? Seriously.

Again, "bad" doesn't enter into it. That's a value judgement. I'm talking about real-world potentials and results, not morals.

If you think shooting back is the answer, tell me -- how has that idea been working out in warfare over the last fifty thousand years?

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals

1 You cannot prove this
2 You already said that it would not stop criminals

Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additional gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses...

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.

 

[Spoonman]

if you are going to rob a convenience store, are you more likely to rob one where you know the employees are armed or where they aren't. same holds true, if you are going to mug someone, is your victim more likely to be a 250 lb marine or a meek looking dude who probably can't fight back? you are less likely to attack if you anticipate being met with equal or greater force.

 

[Spoonman]

M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals

1 You cannot prove this
2 You already said that it would not stop criminals

Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additiobnal gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses...

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.

well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.

Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.

But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few

-Geaux

The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?

This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.

0.0028% of guns in the US are used each year to commit murder.

This proves to anyone with a minimal capacity for reason that law-abiding gun owners are not a danger to society thusly warranting a restriction of their rights. You may continue to belive that they are but doing so only indicates that your agenda isn't subject to the restrictions of reality.

Simple possession/ownership of any class of firearm harms no one and places no on in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger -- as such there is no rational basis for restricting the right to so do. This concept, however, is beyond you.

 

[Pogo]

M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals

1 You cannot prove this
2 You already said that it would not stop criminals

Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additiobnal gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses...

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.

well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption

Excellent point. Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?

You can't legislate these things away. We should know that by now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?

This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.

Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux

Irrelevant. It's the too easy accessibility to so many guns, and the very strong gun mentality in the US that gets little children to shoot their friends or sibling...

You argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Your posiiton has no rational basis and is duly dismissed by thiose capable of reason.

 

[M14 Shooter]

70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.

Thank God they are mostly in Red States.

Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty. Please keep up the good work.

 

[Geaux4it]

70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.

Thank God they are mostly in Red States.

Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty. Please keep up the good work.

The left unpatriotic socialist have no idea why they don't like guns. It's just the trendy subject at cocktail parties where they complain about guns, global warming and the demise of the snowy plover.

Sounds like a great time

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

1 You cannot prove this
2 You already said that it would not stop criminals

Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additiobnal gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.

well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption

Excellent point. Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?

You can't legislate these things away. We should know that by now.

So based on this and your prior response to me, you're actually arguing that we should recognize criminals will have guns and shoot at us, and we actually should prevent people from having guns to protect themselves?

 

[kaz]

70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.

Thank God they are mostly in Red States.

Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty. Please keep up the good work.

The left unpatriotic socialist have no idea why they don't like guns. It's just the trendy subject at cocktail parties where they complain about guns, global warming and the demise of the snowy plover.

Sounds like a great time

-Geaux

I think it's clear why the left don't want individuals to have guns. That's the key word, individual. The ability to defend oneself and take care of oneself maintains us as individuals. They are collectivists. You have to succumb to the collective and live, or die, with the consequences of that.

 

[Pogo]

well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption

Excellent point. Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?

You can't legislate these things away. We should know that by now.

So based on this and your prior response to me, you're actually arguing that we should recognize criminals will have guns and shoot at us, and we actually should prevent people from having guns to protect themselves?

Huuuuuhh?

How in the fuck do you get that?

 

[itfitzme]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Don't let you have one.

 

[rdean]

70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.

Thank God they are mostly in Red States.

That's OK, you give it back as most abortions are in Blue States...

Your kind has so much worry for the fetus, but let the babies starve the little bastards.

 

[Londoner]

One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.

Take this bad argument:

"Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals getting guns; therefore stricter gun laws are useless."

Fail.

The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.

For instance, there are a lot of emotionally unstable adults and adolescents who don't have the intelligence or discipline to secure a gun if they have to jump through too many hoops. However, if a gun is just lying around because lax gun laws have permitted an over-proliferation of guns, than it is more likely that an unstable person will have access to a gun and use it during one of their psychotic swings, which come and go.

Stricter gun laws, like stricter abortion laws and stricter drunk driving laws, will never get rid of the "offending" behavior completely. The key is to limit it. Just because people speed and go through red lights doesn't mean we should get rid of traffic signals.

To say "but criminals will always be able to get guns" is true but completely fucking irrelevant. The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?" This is where the argument is, but the Right has been given bumper stickers that oversimplify the issue as per usual. This is what happens when a special interest group feeds money into a pundit class which, in turn, feeds talking points to well-meaning idiots.