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

[Spoonman]

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,


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.

passing laws doesn't stop anyone who wants to use drugs from using them. and any one who wants to use them has no problem at all getting them. people who don't do drugs don't see them in stores or on the shelves somewhere and they think their laws are having some effect. drug use is rampant in this country. drugs are everywhere. and it's the same with gun laws. NY passed its safe act restricting any type of semi automatic with an changeable magazine. they banned magazines larger than 7 rounds. so you don't see them on the shelves. but you can still get them. the only difference is you don't get them through a legal source. and right now illegal AR's and AK's are a huge business. Cuomo told people they can't have them so there are people who probably never would have bought them now buying them. all he was successful in doing was creating a black market opportunity.

 

[Londoner]

One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.

Take this bad argument:

"Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from 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?

You didn't read my post. (I gotta believe that you and Kaz are pre-college teens who mean well)

I never suggested making guns illegal, nor did I suggest that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from getting guns. My brother & father in-law hunt and they are very responsible with their guns, and I would never think of restricting their rights.

Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.

The speed limit on the NYS Thruway doesn't prevent people from driving 90MPH. The law against murder doesn't prevent murder. The law against sodomizing a goat doesn't prevent lonely men from the rural south from taking certain barnyard liberties. BUT we still have these laws for the purpose of limiting (not eliminating) the offending behavior. If your standard was upheld, we would not have any laws because there will always be criminals who violate those laws. This is stupid. It's a bad argument. Everyone knows that laws don't stop all criminal behavior, but if stricter gun laws make it harder for one mentally retarded teenager to get a gun when he is having a psychotic episode, than perhaps those stricter laws are worth it (if they don't trample constitutionally protected rights).

(At least read my original post before you spew the same garbage argument that we've heard a million times)

 

[MonaGonna]

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.

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

 

[jon_berzerk]

California gun grab triggers Colorado-style recall launch

California gun-rights advocates, emboldened by last month’s successful Colorado recall vote, announced Thursday that they plan to target vulnerable Democratic legislators for recall over their support for sweeping gun-control legislation.

“Right now, in the state of California, the Second Amendment is on the most fragile ground it’s ever been on,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly at a press conference at the state capitol in Sacramento.

The recall effort is being organized by the newly formed group Free California with the support of Gun Owners of California and several Republican state legislators, including Mr. Donnelly, who’s also running for the 2014 Republican gubernatorial nomination.

California gun grab triggers Colorado-style recall launch - Washington Times

 

[hunarcy]

You didn't read my post. (I gotta believe that you and Kaz are pre-college teens who mean well)

I never suggested making guns illegal, nor did I suggest that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from getting guns. My brother & father in-law hunt and they are very responsible with their guns, and I would never think of restricting their rights.

Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.

The speed limit on the NYS Thruway doesn't prevent people from driving 90MPH. The law against murder doesn't prevent murder. The law against sodomizing a goat doesn't prevent lonely men from the rural south from taking certain barnyard liberties. BUT we still have these laws for the purpose of limiting (not eliminating) the offending behavior. If your standard was upheld, we would not have any laws because there will always be criminals who violate those laws. This is stupid. It's a bad argument. Everyone knows that laws don't stop all criminal behavior, but if stricter gun laws make it harder for one mentally retarded teenager to get a gun when he is having a psychotic episode, than perhaps those stricter laws are worth it (if they don't trample constitutionally protected rights).

(At least read my original post before you spew the same garbage argument that we've heard a million times)

We already have laws making it illegal for people under 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns and illegal for people under 21 to purchase a handgun. We have laws making murder illegal. We have local laws prohibiting discharging firearms within city limits. So, your need for prevention has been met...yet you continue to advocate limiting the rights of law abiding gun owners (who are the only ones who abide by the law) leading one to believe that your agenda is actually different than the one that you publically claim. Therefore, your argument ultimately fails.

 

[Geaux4it]

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

You didn't address his points.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

exactly

and dont buy into the lefts myth that criminals do not target

gun free zones

they surely do

did you read the article about the criminal was going to go to the police station

but decided against it because he would be "out gunned"

from the article


The suspect said he wanted to deliver a package to police and kill officers but, because he would be outgunned, he would "wreak havoc" elsewhere.

Man kills woman, shoots hostages and is killed in gunbattle - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

 

[Geaux4it]

For real- Just like the thugs will pass a locked car on the street for one left with the window down

-Geaux

 

[MonaGonna]

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.

 

[MonaGonna]

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.

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

 

[Geaux4it]

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

you are simply incorrect

in fast n furious the feds waived through felons and straw purchasers

in order to pass out and lose guns in mexico

 

[Ernie S.]

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.

Must check user CP. If any post deserves a neg for stupidity, that is it.

 

[Ernie S.]

Crap! You're up tomorrow.

 

[Ernie S.]

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

I have the equipment, knowledge and skill to make guns. I am not all that unusual.

 

[MonaGonna]

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

I have the equipment, knowledge and skill to make guns. I am not all that unusual.

Criminals aren't using home made guns. I'm pretty sure even YOU know that. So why spout such nonsense in the first place?

 

[MonaGonna]

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

you are simply incorrect

in fast n furious the feds waived through felons and straw purchasers

in order to pass out and lose guns in mexico

You'd have to translate this into English for me to respond.

 

[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.

-- 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.

Typical liberal deflection. In responding to points you made a bunch of contradictory statements. I showed you the posts, nope, you don't see it. Either I can spend a bunch of time cutting and pasting everything together or you can just make a clear, comprehensive statement on your gun law position in a discussion you're actively participating in on gun laws and then I can point to where I'm confused. So? What's your view? You seemed to me to contradict everything you said on it so far. However, what I have are piecemeal comments. Maybe a clearer statement of what you're arguing would make it make sense to me.