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

[Missourian]

You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.

They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it

Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet. This is you from the future. You were right!

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

 

[rightwinger]

So if you sell a car to someone we should come after you if they get a DUI?

I will be perfectly happy if we get the same level of control over guns as we have over cars

Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle

I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check

 

[LoneLaugher]

OP...............I will answer your question if you answer 'yes' to this simple one first.

Do you really wish to prevent criminals from having access to firearms?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?

It doesn't have to be specific. Less bullets going into peoples bodies

Yes it does. As Steven pointed out, current laws against putting bullets into bodies don't seem to be helping. That's already illegal for the most part. As has also been pointed out, cities like New York, Chicago and D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws yet some of the highest rates of gun violence. On the other hand there actually is some research that suggest greater concentrations of guns held by law abiding citizens may result in less gun violence. I can tell you that's at least anecodtally true because there were literally hundreds of guns in the neigborhood I grew up in. No one was ever shot or even shot at in the 30+ years I've been alive.

There is plenty of evidence to support that there is relatively little correlation between stricter gun laws and less gun violence. I would be nice though if people would just use basic common sense. If you're a criminal are you more or less liekly to target someone whom you know isn't allowed to have gun?

Why aren't those current laws helping? People intrinsically will not engage in the behavior if consequences are harmful.

This idea that no laws help anything because things still happen is only applied to guns. No one says get rid of traffic lights because accidents still happen.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.

They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it

Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet. This is you from the future. You were right!

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

 

[Bern80]

I will be perfectly happy if we get the same level of control over guns as we have over cars

Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle

I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check

Again you would find that reasonable if you were selling someone your car? You think you should have to go through someones driving record and make the determinatin as to whether they should be allowed to own a car? I would prefer we take responsibility like adults in that your behavior is NOT my responsibility.

 

[rightwinger]

Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle

I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check

Again you would find that reasonable if you were selling someone your car? You think you should have to go through someones driving record and make the determinatin as to whether they should be allowed to own a car? I would prefer we take responsibility like adults in that your behavior is NOT my responsibility.

I think a seller has a responsibility to check the background of whom a gun is being sold to. If you knowingly sell to a criminal or fail to check...I would hold you responsible

There are no laws against selling cars to criminals. Selling your gun to a criminal is a different matter

 

[Missourian]

Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet. This is you from the future. You were right!

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

Do you think before you type?

What is a murder law?

Show me one.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

Do you think before you type?

What is a murder law?

Show me one.

Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever

 

[Bern80]

Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet. This is you from the future. You were right!

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

I think it's you that's mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I answered that already.

Cho, Loughner, Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

I think it's you that are mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?

Yes! So you're saying crimes and the punishments that come along with them aren't needed because criminals will commit crimes anyway and nothing will change that.

Thanks for repeating what I said verbatim. Does that only apply to guns or is that across the board for Molesters, Murderers, rapist etc? Or just guns?

KAZZ?!?! Where you at buddy?

 

[Bern80]

I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check

Again you would find that reasonable if you were selling someone your car? You think you should have to go through someones driving record and make the determinatin as to whether they should be allowed to own a car? I would prefer we take responsibility like adults in that your behavior is NOT my responsibility.

I think a seller has a responsibility to check the background of whom a gun is being sold to. If you knowingly sell to a criminal or fail to check...I would hold you responsible

There are no laws against selling cars to criminals. Selling your gun to a criminal is a different matter

You're back pedaling righty. This wasn't about whether someone was a criminal. It is about what someoen might do with what you sell them. That's really what we're worried about isn't it? In that respect the two are the same, yet your position is inconsistent. You would be for going after the person that sold a gun to someone who killed someone, yet you wold not be for going after the previous owner of a vehicle that was driven by drunk driver and killed someone.

 

[candycorn]

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.

It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...

As for the question

It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.


Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.

Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.

Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.

As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...

This is absolutely idiotic. With no other object would you propsose such moronic measures. Do you realize the violence that does occur with firearms occurs with a mere fraction of the number of firearms that are out there. I don't know if it's perception or what, but you seem to believe that most guns and gun owners are violent people when that simply isn't the case. The vast majority of guns are never used against another human being and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. You have not right to treat them as such.

Noted.

 

[candycorn]

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.

It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...

As for the question

It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.


Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.

Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.

Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.

As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...

That's just incredibly stupid.

Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.

Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.

I like your idea about punishment.

We have a bigger problem than that though... What's your idea?

 

[candycorn]

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.

It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...

As for the question

It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.


Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.

Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.

Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.

As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...

So poor people can't defend themselves but rich people can.

Great plan.

Ever hear of a poll tax?

It was a tax that disenfranchised poor voter by making damn sure they couldn't afford to exercise their constitutional right.

This would be the Second Amendment equivalent.

It wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny for 30 seconds.

Don't know about that; what's your plan to prevent another Sandy Hook? Kevlar school uniforms?

 

[candycorn]

It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.

I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.

Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up

I agree with grumps; if they commit a crime; you're gone for X number of years; no parole, no time off. Soyanara!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I know, you just decline to say what you want. Gun control laws work. When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work. Like gun control will prevent it All.

So, explain how gun control laws don't work.

Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.

This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves. For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them. For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection. It has to work 100% of the time. You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.

You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.

They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it

You want an example of Gun Control laws not working? I give you Chicago and New York and Washington DC.

 

[Missourian]

So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working? Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone. MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?

Do you think before you type?

What is a murder law?

Show me one.

Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever

Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?

Here is the Missouri Statute...

[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE] 565.020.



1. A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.


2. Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.

It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.

It does not keep people from committing murder, though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment, the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.

GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand, has an entirely different purpose.

Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.

Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.

Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.

If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings, then advocating more of the same, like expanded background checks, is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you think before you type?

What is a murder law?

Show me one.

Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever

Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?

Here is the Missouri Statute...

[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE] 565.020.



1. A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.


2. Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.

It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.

It does not keep people from committing murder, though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment, the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.

GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand, has an entirely different purpose.

Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.

Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.

Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.

If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings, then advocating more of the same, like expanded background checks, is ludicrous in the extreme.

So laws work but gun laws wont work because you say so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever

Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?

Here is the Missouri Statute...

[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE] 565.020.



1. A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.


2. Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.

It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.

It does not keep people from committing murder, though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment, the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.

GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand, has an entirely different purpose.

Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.

Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.

Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.

If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings, then advocating more of the same, like expanded background checks, is ludicrous in the extreme.

So laws work but gun laws wont work because you say so?

You ask a question earlier and I answered, why are you ignoring that?