The only laws that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[candycorn]

The number would be determined by the point you get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment.

Quit dancing...I'm asking you. At what point do you start caring?

Again, when enough people care that 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states vote to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment.

The ballet continues I see.

 

[candycorn]

candycorn seems to be very reluctant to answer this question.

I wonder why?

(Did somebody mention "dancing"? )

I detailed the plan like 4 times. Here are the bullet points.

Make guns more expensive to keep to drive up costs and lower demand. This will reduce the pool of weapons over time...one or two generations.

Sentence criminals to mandatory minimums if they use/brandish a firearm during a crime. This reduces crime which reduces the demand even more.

Create a government/industry partnership where responsible gun ownership and parental supervision is stressed. Similar to what we did with cigarettes.

So the plan is:

1.) Increase taxes.
2.) Duplicate laws that are already on the books.
3.) Increase taxes even more.

Great idea.

How will any of these affect criminals who don't obey your laws and usually steal their guns or get them on the black market?

No,

-Increase the price of guns. Taxes are one way to do it. There are other ways.
-There are no mandatory minimums that I'm aware of as to where you do X, you get Y number of years automatically.
-Not sure where you got the idea to increase taxes even more.

As for this mythical "black market" you guys swear is everywhere...where do those guns come from in this market? The same places that make the guns in the "white market". You reduce the output from the suppliers and both markets dry up over time. And when guns are available, the price is higher thus retarding the demand.

 

[martybegan]

Quit dancing...I'm asking you. At what point do you start caring?

Again, when enough people care that 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states vote to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment.

The ballet continues I see.

Just because you don't like the answer or can't retort to the answer, doesn't mean its not an answer.

 

[martybegan]

He said "it would have to be more than it is now" before he thinks anything is wrong (he copped to over 10,000 deaths being not enough).. [MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION] was asked how many and has gone away.

It's called having a life shit for brains.

Someone else posted a good point below. If it comes to the point where the number is significant, it won't be the guns, it will be the breakdown of society. At that point laws wouldn't matter, and only idiots would not be armed.

Well, now that you're back from your "life", what is the number? At what point do you start to admit we have a problem...

I just answered it.

 

[candycorn]

We don't have enough gun deaths to warrant gun bans or all the crap you propose.

The question you ask CANT be answered simple yes or no.

So how many do we need to have before you agree we need to change?

Give us a number.

It would have to be bigger than it is now, and it would require changing the 2nd amendment to do anything about it.

Right now 19k of the 32k are suicides, and I don't give a rats ass about those.

How big does the number have to be???

 

[Little-Acorn]

How big does the number have to be???[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Marty, she's trying to fool you into thinking that the only criteria is the body count racked up by gangbangers, criminals, suicides, etc., and not the question of whether people have the right to defend themselves, or whether the good done by guns (deterrence of far more crimes against innocents) outweighs the harm.

So quit holding out. Cave in and agree with her that guns do nothing but kill, wouldya? Then she can get on to the banning and confiscating that's waiting in the wings (and is the subject of the thread), and the rest of us can get back to Oprah.

 

[martybegan]

So how many do we need to have before you agree we need to change?

Give us a number.

It would have to be bigger than it is now, and it would require changing the 2nd amendment to do anything about it.

Right now 19k of the 32k are suicides, and I don't give a rats ass about those.

How big does the number have to be???

No set number, but besides, if the numbers do escalate to the point where it was a concern, then i would rather be armed, because at that point society is crumbing.

 

[martybegan]

How big does the number have to be???[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Marty, she's trying to fool you into thinking that the only criteria is the body count racked up by gangbangers, criminals, suicides, etc., and not the question of whether people have the right to defend themselves, or whether the good done by guns (deterrence of far more crimes against innocents) outweighs the harm.

So quit holding out. Cave in and agree with her that guns do nothing but kill, wouldya? Then she can get on to the banning and confiscating that's waiting in the wings (and is the subject of the thread), and the rest of us can get back to Oprah.

I've given responses, not just the one they want.

 

[candycorn]

It would have to be bigger than it is now, and it would require changing the 2nd amendment to do anything about it.

Right now 19k of the 32k are suicides, and I don't give a rats ass about those.

How big does the number have to be???

No set number, but besides, if the numbers do escalate to the point where it was a concern, then i would rather be armed, because at that point society is crumbing.

Ok...

Ballpark it.

You say that 13,000 gun deaths is too few. How much would be too many?

39,000 or 3 times that?

390,000 or 30 times that?

1.3 Million (100 times that)

Just trying to get an idea of where the threshold is...

 

[MikeK]

Never. Going. To. Happen. Period.

There was a time when I would have said the same about many things which have happened within the past few decades.

This is not the same America I grew up in.

 

[martybegan]

How big does the number have to be???

No set number, but besides, if the numbers do escalate to the point where it was a concern, then i would rather be armed, because at that point society is crumbing.

Ok...

Ballpark it.

You say that 13,000 gun deaths is too few. How much would be too many?

39,000 or 3 times that?

390,000 or 30 times that?

1.3 Million (100 times that)

Just trying to get an idea of where the threshold is...

If we got to 1.3 million society would be in the state of collapse, and Sure as shit I would want to be armed.

its not a question of too many or to few, it a question of does it meet the threshold of restricting ME from owning firearms or carrying them around.

You are asking the wrong question, and looking for the wrong answer.

 

[candycorn]

No set number, but besides, if the numbers do escalate to the point where it was a concern, then i would rather be armed, because at that point society is crumbing.

Ok...

Ballpark it.

You say that 13,000 gun deaths is too few. How much would be too many?

39,000 or 3 times that?

390,000 or 30 times that?

1.3 Million (100 times that)

Just trying to get an idea of where the threshold is...

If we got to 1.3 million society would be in the state of collapse, and Sure as shit I would want to be armed.

its not a question of too many or to few, it a question of does it meet the threshold of restricting ME from owning firearms or carrying them around.

You are asking the wrong question, and looking for the wrong answer.

So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?

If Fisher Price or GM made a product that killed 39,000, 390,000 or 1.3 million people directly...would you think we should look at beefing up the consumer safety regulations or would you be okay with that too?

 

[Politico]

FFS you hate guns we freaking get it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

All these big-govt gun-haters are dancing carefully around the fact that none of their gun laws and restrictions will keep guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws.....

Most of the mass shooters fit the profile of someone who would have no clue how to acquire black market items. You seriously think Adam Lanza would have had the wherewithal to acquire a black market firearm? Come on. Half of these mass shooters can barely function in society let alone have the balls and the street smarts to find and buy a black market firearm.


Aaron Ybarra was subdued by a guy with pepper spray after stopping to reload.

 

[Newby]

All these big-govt gun-haters are dancing carefully around the fact that none of their gun laws and restrictions will keep guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws.....

Most of the mass shooters fit the profile of someone who would have no clue how to acquire black market items. You seriously think Adam Lanza would have had the wherewithal to acquire a black market firearm? Come on. Half of these mass shooters can barely function in society let alone have the balls and the street smarts to find and buy a black market firearm.


Aaron Ybarra was subdued by a guy with pepper spray after stopping to reload.

So what? 'Mass shooters' make up what percentage of gun deaths in the U.S.? They may grab the biggest headlines, but are hardly accountable for any real percentage of gun deaths. For the highest percentage of criminals that are using guns to murder, I would guess that they already are getting their guns on the black market or thru theft, both against the law. You can pass as many laws as you want and turn every citizen into a 'criminal' in an attempt to control the population to meet your standards, but it will never last for any great length of time even if you do acheive it.

No one can answer with any logical or reasonable response how passing more laws is going to keep criminals from obtaining weapons. And the reason it continues to get argued is because keeping weapons from criminals isn't really the goal.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

 

[martybegan]

Ok...

Ballpark it.

You say that 13,000 gun deaths is too few. How much would be too many?

39,000 or 3 times that?

390,000 or 30 times that?

1.3 Million (100 times that)

Just trying to get an idea of where the threshold is...

If we got to 1.3 million society would be in the state of collapse, and Sure as shit I would want to be armed.

its not a question of too many or to few, it a question of does it meet the threshold of restricting ME from owning firearms or carrying them around.

You are asking the wrong question, and looking for the wrong answer.

So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?

If Fisher Price or GM made a product that killed 39,000, 390,000 or 1.3 million people directly...would you think we should look at beefing up the consumer safety regulations or would you be okay with that too?

That product would probably not be functioning as intended, so it would be a recall, not a ban. Bad analogy, no biscuit.

the surge in gun deaths would be due to something LIKE society crumbling. Right now homicides are on the decline in general even WITH all the guns in circulation.

 

[candycorn]

If we got to 1.3 million society would be in the state of collapse, and Sure as shit I would want to be armed.

its not a question of too many or to few, it a question of does it meet the threshold of restricting ME from owning firearms or carrying them around.

You are asking the wrong question, and looking for the wrong answer.

So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?

If Fisher Price or GM made a product that killed 39,000, 390,000 or 1.3 million people directly...would you think we should look at beefing up the consumer safety regulations or would you be okay with that too?

That product would probably not be functioning as intended, so it would be a recall, not a ban. Bad analogy, no biscuit.

the surge in gun deaths would be due to something LIKE society crumbling. Right now homicides are on the decline in general even WITH all the guns in circulation.

Except guns ARE WORKING THE WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK...point, pull the trigger, kill what you're aiming at.

 

[candycorn]

"So short of society crumbling...there is no number of gun deaths that you'd deem too many to re-examine the laws in the nation?"

Shooting people is already usually against the law. What part of "criminals don't obey the law" are you having trouble understanding?
Law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

And to the tens of thousands who the criminals kill...all you can offer is "tough shit"?

 

[Kosh]

Well since Obama has done away witch due process, just let him sign an executive order to send a drone strike on them.