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

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Ohh look another idiot.

 

[MonaGonna]

^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.

 

[Steven_R]

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.

There's a chart a few pages back that shows that as more gun laws are enacted, gun crime goes up.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

Now that is a bad argument. make pot illegal people can't get it. make booze illegal, people can't get it. I mean lets be real. making something illegal makes nothing harder to get, including guns. it just means you get it from a different source. you don't but it from a store anymore. make guns illegal here and a black market will explode. In NY with the safe act, one already has. ar-15's are illegal to buy in a store. so no one is buying them from a store. you can still get them though. very easily. and you know what happens then. you have no way of controlling who has what. there is no registration in a black market. there is no background check. do you honestly think most criminals are walking into a store and buying there gun today?

 

[kaz]

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?

You weren't listening to what you were saying? Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to. That's exactly what you argued. If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify. But what you argued was clear.

 

[kaz]

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.

I have a whole gun collection. rifles, shotguns, pistols. A civil war gun with a bayonet. Want to stop by for drinks after dinner?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Anti-gun loons don't give a whit about protecting innocent people, they only want the state to have a monopoly on everything, including force.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Speaking of fail...
You cannot prevent people from breaking the law by passing a law.

 

[kaz]

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.

Liberals practicing logic is a very dangerous experience. You and I have posted in so many of the same threads at this point that the only explanation for your not knowing that I'm a pro-choice libertarian is your overt stupidity. I went for the quip and you stepped on it like an upside down rake in the yard, but there is an interesting observation on your original quote.

Most of the guns are in the Red States, most of the gun laws are in the Blue States, most of the murders are in the ... wait for it ... Blue States.

Life just doesn't cooperate with your bull, does it dean?

 

[kaz]

The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?"

I'm good with how you phrased the question. And the answer to that is clearly no. It will not save one life, gun laws cost lives. People's ability to defend themselves clearly saves lives. And gun laws clearly unduly limits the constitutionality of the citizens.

Gun laws are also just morally wrong. Government does not protect you, it just draws a line around your body and makes some inquiries to see if they can future out who did it. Removing your ability to defend yourself and protect your family and your property is just wrong.

 

[Pogo]

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?

You weren't listening to what you were saying? Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to. That's exactly what you argued. If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify. But what you argued was clear.

I cannot possibly defend your conclusion. It makes no sense. The onus is on you to explain what the hell you're talking about. I have no idea.

 

[kaz]

Huuuuuhh?

How in the fuck do you get that?

You weren't listening to what you were saying? Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to. That's exactly what you argued. If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify. But what you argued was clear.

I cannot possibly defend your conclusion. It makes no sense. The onus is on you to explain what the hell you're talking about. I have no idea.

The irony is I'm saying what the hell are you talking about and you're saying it's my job to say what I'm talking about that what you are talking about makes no sense. You said the answer to guns is not more guns and the answer is not to shoot back. Then you conceded we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why don't you actually explain your position because what you have been saying in response to posts makes no sense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.

^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.

 

[Pogo]

You weren't listening to what you were saying? Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to. That's exactly what you argued. If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify. But what you argued was clear.

I cannot possibly defend your conclusion. It makes no sense. The onus is on you to explain what the hell you're talking about. I have no idea.

The irony is I'm saying what the hell are you talking about and you're saying it's my job to say what I'm talking about that what you are talking about makes no sense. You said the answer to guns is not more guns and the answer is not to shoot back. Then you conceded we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why don't you actually explain your position because what you have been saying in response to posts makes no sense.

I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals". You inserted those.

No wonder you're not making sense; you're inserting your own content. And I can't answer for it.

I thought I just said that.

 

[Pogo]

^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.

^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.

It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct. Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's entire answer was, and I quote,

Ohh look another idiot.

That's it.

Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all. I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.

And you just did the same thing.

 

[kaz]

I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals". You inserted those.

I went back and you so clearly did say both of those that I'm not going to go to the effort to play your game.

Since you want to play word games with you said what you didn't say you meant you didn't mean you said, as I said, the way to clarify this is to state your view. A request you ignored. If you want to word parse and rewrite history, obviously when I show you the quotes I already showed you you're just going to spin your way out of it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gun control does not work on its own. Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons. Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.

Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.

More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.

In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.

One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals". You inserted those.

I went back and you so clearly did say both of those that I'm not going to go to the effort to play your game.

-- which means you can't quote them, since they don't exist.

Once again, Russel's Teapot -- it's not on me to prove the nonexistence of something I didn't write.

Since you want to play word games with you said what you didn't say you meant you didn't mean you said, as I said, the way to clarify this is to state your view.

The bit before "as I said" doesn't even make grammatical sense. Do you speak English?

I did state my view; that it doesn't say what you wish it would have is just not my problem. I don't write your posts for you, and you don't write mine.

 

[Spoonman]

^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.

^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.

It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct. Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's entire answer was, and I quote,

Ohh look another idiot.

That's it.

Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all. I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.

And you just did the same thing.

Londoners arguments only made sense if drug laws actually made it hard for people to get drugs.

 

[Pogo]

^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.

It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct. Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's entire answer was, and I quote,

Ohh look another idiot.

That's it.

Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all. I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.

And you just did the same thing.

Londoners arguments only made sense if drug laws actually made it hard for people to get drugs.

On the basis of the arguments, I agree with yours. Although to the present post, drug laws do make it hard, to a degree. I think your greater point is that passing prohibitive laws doesn't deter the desire for drugs, and they'll go around the law to get them. Assuming that is your meaning, that's why I agree with the analogy.

I was just saying that "oh look another idiot" is not an argument. I have this extreme disdain for intellectual sloth.