Mass shooting near school in Baltimore

[Weatherman2020]

Five shot near elementary school in West Baltimore

Why is this only local news? Why did it take someone to forward me this story for me to hear about it? Why isn't this national headlines? Mass shooting - check. Next to a school - check. Why wouldn't liberals and the media jump all over this?

Need room to destroy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

JimBowie - The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

So now you say that laws do prevent crime? Shit, will you make your fucking mind up already?

Are you stupid, or simply a game player?

Laws don't prevent crime. Period.

People obey the law because they believe it benefits the culture; some people don't. Some people obey the law for fear of the punishment.

Some people don't give a fuck about the law, nor do they fear punishment.

That's obvious to most people in most cultures. The exceptions are sociopaths (aka those with personality disorders), anarchists, terrorists, garden variety criminals and morons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

JimBowie - The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

So now you say that laws do prevent crime? Shit, will you make your fucking mind up already?

Laws don't prevent crime. Period.

And yet, you contine to argue for more mindless, unnecessary, unconstitutional limits on the rights of the law abiding with the intent to do just that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you stupid, or simply a game player?

Laws don't prevent crime. Period.

So the law has zero affect on preventing crime you say so here.

People obey the law because they believe it benefits the culture; some people don't. Some people obey the law for fear of the punishment.

Now you are saying that activity X, whatever it is, is not being done as much because a law has been passed. So that activity that would be CRIME X, is now not being done as much, and so does have an impact on and prevents some amount of crime, no?

How is this wording not apparent? On one hand you argue that new laws do not prevent crime, then you argue that some people wont commit the crime now that there is a law against it.

How am I misunderstanding what you are trying to state?

 

[LOki]

Not at all. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Good. What do you offer in return? Nothing of value?

What lies? I posted no lies.

No. YOU have a problem with "gun violence." For the rest of us the problem is violence... ALL of it. You obviously find violence entirely acceptable, provided only that no gun is involved.

Probably because in your romanticized notions of violence, guns allow for an unfair advantage... for victims.

Right. Not violence... ONLY "gun violence."

100% denial of reality from a superstitious gun-queer.

An opinion based entirely on logical fallacy and OBVIOUS disinformation.

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun.

Cost is relative.

To put it as crassly as possible: Compared to the human cost of abortion (for instance), the cost of protecting the human right of personal autonomy through the right to keep and bear arms is a bargain.

There is a cost associated with rights. Anyone who values rights must accept that fact. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.

Over a million defenseless human lives are electively ended every year, euphemistically, under the umbrella of "healthcare." Protected as an exercise of a Right.

That is the accepted cost of preserving the human right to personal autonomy--but only when we're discussing abortion using the best medical practices.

I don't like that cost, but if that's what it takes to prevent the whole of society from turning human beings into brood animals, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then its the price that must be paid.

I get that.

But when we're discussing preserving personal autonomy, through the right to possess the best tools to defend human lives from those with in possession of a perverse entitlement to violence against their fellows, the cost of a few thousand human lives is suddenly unacceptably high.

I don't get that.

Many of those human lives are made defenseless by "reasonable" and/or "common sense" gun control laws enacted by persons with their own sense of entitlement to violence against their constituency. I cite every "gun free zone", " mandatory waiting period", and owner/gun registration law as examples.

These are criminal acts perpetrated against all of us, and most particularly against those amongst us most likely to be the targets of the criminally violent. You know, like children, women, and gay folk.

I'd like to think we all agree that women folk (and all the rest of us) possess the human right to defend themselves with the tool(s) of their individual choosing, against the aggressions of those (and their elected proxies) who consider them (and us) property. I'd like to think we agree that said right--on constiutional AND MORAL criteria--shall not be infringed for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

So, relatively speaking, YES--the few thousand deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for OUR (yours too, Sweetheart) right to own/possess a gun.

You don't have to like that cost; I'm not asking you to like it. I don't like it. But, if that's what it takes to prevent each of us from becoming defenseless victims to the criminally violent; if that's what it takes to prevent all of us from becoming thralls to the first tyrant willing to use coercive force to impose his will upon others; if that's what it takes to preventthe whole of society from turning human beings into beasts of burden, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then thats the price that must be paid.

I've explained this to you before, Cupcake.

Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

No. No one is really opposed to reasonable gun control measures. Not the folks at the NRA, and certainly not me.

What it comes down to is ALL of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are awful.

That's all. Your ideas are awful... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom.

Licensing and registration ARE NOT "reasonable"... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

They're OBVIOUS!

A mother bear protects her cubs,...

With the very best tools available to her... there is no morally valid reason to deny her those tools.

...a herd of elephants protects their young...

With the very best tools available to them... there is no morally valid reason to deny them those tools.

...and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species;...

With the very best tools available to us... there is no morally valid reason to deny us those tools.

...yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs,...

No. My "kind" understand the OBJECTIVELY VALID fact of reality that our gun rights are under attack every time there's an EMOTIONAL response to an act of mass murder that entails an attack on all of our rights the very best tools available to us for the defense of ourselves and others: to "step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species."

...and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

No. No. NO! We just recognize that your speciously "reasonable" solutions are no solutions at all! None of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are solutions to the violence that appalls all of us... NONE OF THEM!

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

GRAND! I'd ask first, "Effective at what?"

I'll just presume you mean reducing the incidence of criminal violence--ALL OF IT, not just the invalid (for OBVIOUS reasons) tautology: gun-violence.

Let's just see what you got.

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

I really have no comment on most of this.

There is no argument made to rebut, but the presumption that what goes on in other nations--what works for them--is appropriate for us, is debateable.

Yet, I find it interesting that they have to qualify the membership of all these comparison nations... why not just assert that the USA is the most gun-crazy and violent nation amongst those who have planted a flag on the moon?

There are other exclusive qualifiers that make just a good sense as "G7 nations" and ""advanced" democracies." Why not compare the USA to ALL the nations?

We all know why.

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

All business written by RFK? I've got no problem with it. I must point out however, that he concerned himself with all kinds of violence... he did NOT arbitrarily identify and single out ONE kind of violence to be put ahead of all others--at the risk of exacerbating those others.

Oh! But then The Globalist chimes in with, "...victim to another callous gun murder..." tacitly confessing that "gun murder" is a special murder--implying that other kinds of murder don't deserve so much our attention. It's OBVIOUS that if RFK had been stabbed, they'd have hunted down some other "gun murder" to wave in our faces.

And then The Globalist states, "We still make it easy for anybody to acquire guns and ammunition." Which is untrue. It is obvious that we tried making it harder and harder for thoughtful, caring, responsible and law-abiding folks to acquire guns and ammunition; while refusing to address thoughtless, careless, irresponsible and criminal people getting guns--and we discovered what was OBVIOUS to all reasonable folks... it doesn't work--for all the OBVIOUS reasons!

And now, while such dopey gun control legislations is being reversed, and our right to keep and bear arms is being upheld more and more often; while the number of guns in private hands is ever increasing... the rate of violence in this country is decreasing. Including the rate of "gun murder."

Then, the Globalist goes full retard: "The NRA is the chief sponsor of gun-induced domestic terrorism." An OBVIOUS lie. O. B. V. I. O. U. S.

After this it's bullshit appeals to emotions... no facts. Until...

"And so it still holds true that Americans find themselves incapable of changing this culture of violence simply by adopting strict gun control laws."

Well, finally a spark of sense.

It's just too bad theses asshats at The Globalist cannot accept that there's an OBVIOUS reason strict gun control laws can have no effect on "this culture of violence."

Perhaps going after just the criminally violent, rather than everyone else might work. Just a thought.

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

The whole "Gun-Deaths" argument = tautology. The entire "gun death" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun-death" so that you can both include deaths that were not caused by guns; and exclude deaths caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun deaths"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

So. What else does The Globalist offer us here?

"As it stands, automobile ownership and operation is far more regulated and licensed in the United States than is gun ownership and usage."

If only that were true.

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

Nothing worth rebutting except: "33,636 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2013."

The reality is that not one person was killed by a gun in 2013. ZERO.

Oh, we all know what you mean... guns were USED to kill 33,636 people in 2013. We know.

How many of those were legitimate self-defense? How many of those were gang-on-gang warfare?

That disingenuous figure fails to tell you that 2/3 of that number were suicides... guns didn't cause those "gun deaths", now did they?

Unless you think they did.

Rather than admit that choosing a gun speaks only to the sincerety of determination to end ones life; rather than thoughtfully examining causes, and validating the pain and desperate despair of the suicidal; you'd rather just blame guns and the NRA to inflate your "gun death" statistic--to advance a gun control argument that has no factual merit.

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links.

I can.

It was easy.

If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

My credibilty is just fine, but yours is already busted, Princess.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you stupid, or simply a game player?

Laws don't prevent crime. Period.

So the law has zero affect on preventing crime you say so here.

People obey the law because they believe it benefits the culture; some people don't. Some people obey the law for fear of the punishment.

Now you are saying that activity X, whatever it is, is not being done as much because a law has been passed. So that activity that would be CRIME X, is now not being done as much, and so does have an impact on and prevents some amount of crime, no?

How is this wording not apparent? On one hand you argue that new laws do not prevent crime, then you argue that some people wont commit the crime now that there is a law against it.

How am I misunderstanding what you are trying to state?

Here is my entire post in bold:

Are you stupid, or simply a game player?

Laws don't prevent crime. Period.

People obey the law because they believe it benefits the culture; some people don't. Some people obey the law for fear of the punishment.

Some people don't give a fuck about the law, nor do they fear punishment.

That's obvious to most people in most cultures. The exceptions are sociopaths (aka those with personality disorders), anarchists, terrorists, garden variety criminals and morons.

You are one of the exceptions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun.

Cost is relative.

To put it as crassly as possible: Compared to the human cost of abortion (for instance), the cost of protecting the human right of personal autonomy through the right to keep and bear arms is a bargain.

There is a cost associated with rights. Anyone who values rights must accept that fact. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.

Over a million defenseless human lives are electively ended every year, euphemistically, under the umbrella of "healthcare." Protected as an exercise of a Right.

That is the accepted cost of preserving the human right to personal autonomy--but only when we're discussing abortion using the best medical practices.

I don't like that cost, but if that's what it takes to prevent the whole of society from turning human beings into brood animals, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then its the price that must be paid.

I get that.

But when we're discussing preserving personal autonomy, through the right to possess the best tools to defend human lives from those with in possession of a perverse entitlement to violence against their fellows, the cost of a few thousand human lives is suddenly unacceptably high.

I don't get that.

Many of those human lives are made defenseless by "reasonable" and/or "common sense" gun control laws enacted by persons with their own sense of entitlement to violence against their constituency. I cite every "gun free zone", " mandatory waiting period", and owner/gun registration law as examples.

These are criminal acts perpetrated against all of us, and most particularly against those amongst us most likely to be the targets of the criminally violent. You know, like children, women, and gay folk.

I'd like to think we all agree that women folk (and all the rest of us) possess the human right to defend themselves with the tool(s) of their individual choosing, against the aggressions of those (and their elected proxies) who consider them (and us) property. I'd like to think we agree that said right--on constiutional AND MORAL criteria--shall not be infringed for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

So, relatively speaking, YES--the few thousand deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for OUR (yours too, Sweetheart) right to own/possess a gun.

You don't have to like that cost; I'm not asking you to like it. I don't like it. But, if that's what it takes to prevent each of us from becoming defenseless victims to the criminally violent; if that's what it takes to prevent all of us from becoming thralls to the first tyrant willing to use coercive force to impose his will upon others; if that's what it takes to preventthe whole of society from turning human beings into beasts of burden, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then thats the price that must be paid.

I've explained this to you before, Cupcake.

Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

No. No one is really opposed to reasonable gun control measures. Not the folks at the NRA, and certainly not me.

What it comes down to is ALL of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are awful.

That's all. Your ideas are awful... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom.

Licensing and registration ARE NOT "reasonable"... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

They're OBVIOUS!

A mother bear protects her cubs,...

With the very best tools available to her... there is no morally valid reason to deny her those tools.

...a herd of elephants protects their young...

With the very best tools available to them... there is no morally valid reason to deny them those tools.

...and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species;...

With the very best tools available to us... there is no morally valid reason to deny us those tools.

...yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs,...

No. My "kind" understand the OBJECTIVELY VALID fact of reality that our gun rights are under attack every time there's an EMOTIONAL response to an act of mass murder that entails an attack on all of our rights the very best tools available to us for the defense of ourselves and others: to "step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species."

...and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

No. No. NO! We just recognize that your speciously "reasonable" solutions are no solutions at all! None of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are solutions to the violence that appalls all of us... NONE OF THEM!

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

GRAND! I'd ask first, "Effective at what?"

I'll just presume you mean reducing the incidence of criminal violence--ALL OF IT, not just the invalid (for OBVIOUS reasons) tautology: gun-violence.

Let's just see what you got.

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

I really have no comment on most of this.

There is no argument made to rebut, but the presumption that what goes on in other nations--what works for them--is appropriate for us, is debateable.

Yet, I find it interesting that they have to qualify the membership of all these comparison nations... why not just assert that the USA is the most gun-crazy and violent nation amongst those who have planted a flag on the moon?

There are other exclusive qualifiers that make just a good sense as "G7 nations" and ""advanced" democracies." Why not compare the USA to ALL the nations?

We all know why.

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

All business written by RFK? I've got no problem with it. I must point out however, that he concerned himself with all kinds of violence... he did NOT arbitrarily identify and single out ONE kind of violence to be put ahead of all others--at the risk of exacerbating those others.

Oh! But then The Globalist chimes in with, "...victim to another callous gun murder..." tacitly confessing that "gun murder" is a special murder--implying that other kinds of murder don't deserve so much our attention. It's OBVIOUS that if RFK had been stabbed, they'd have hunted down some other "gun murder" to wave in our faces.

And then The Globalist states, "We still make it easy for anybody to acquire guns and ammunition." Which is untrue. It is obvious that we tried making it harder and harder for thoughtful, caring, responsible and law-abiding folks to acquire guns and ammunition; while refusing to address thoughtless, careless, irresponsible and criminal people getting guns--and we discovered what was OBVIOUS to all reasonable folks... it doesn't work--for all the OBVIOUS reasons!

And now, while such dopey gun control legislations is being reversed, and our right to keep and bear arms is being upheld more and more often; while the number of guns in private hands is ever increasing... the rate of violence in this country is decreasing. Including the rate of "gun murder."

Then, the Globalist goes full retard: "The NRA is the chief sponsor of gun-induced domestic terrorism." An OBVIOUS lie. O. B. V. I. O. U. S.

After this it's bullshit appeals to emotions... no facts. Until...

"And so it still holds true that Americans find themselves incapable of changing this culture of violence simply by adopting strict gun control laws."

Well, finally a spark of sense.

It's just too bad theses asshats at The Globalist cannot accept that there's an OBVIOUS reason strict gun control laws can have no effect on "this culture of violence."

Perhaps going after just the criminally violent, rather than everyone else might work. Just a thought.

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

The whole "Gun-Deaths" argument = tautology. The entire "gun death" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun-death" so that you can both include deaths that were not caused by guns; and exclude deaths caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun deaths"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

So. What else does The Globalist offer us here?

"As it stands, automobile ownership and operation is far more regulated and licensed in the United States than is gun ownership and usage."

If only that were true.

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

Nothing worth rebutting except: "33,636 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2013."

The reality is that not one person was killed by a gun in 2013. ZERO.

Oh, we all know what you mean... guns were USED to kill 33,636 people in 2013. We know.

How many of those were legitimate self-defense? How many of those were gang-on-gang warfare?

That disingenuous figure fails to tell you that 2/3 of that number were suicides... guns didn't cause those "gun deaths", now did they?

Unless you think they did.

Rather than admit that choosing a gun speaks only to the sincerety of determination to end ones life; rather than thoughtfully examining causes, and validating the pain and desperate despair of the suicidal; you'd rather just blame guns and the NRA to inflate your "gun death" statistic--to advance a gun control argument that has no factual merit.

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links.

I can.

It was easy.

If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

My credibilty is just fine, but yours is already busted, Princess.

Another word which you need to understand is "concise"; a difficult concept for those obsessive compulsive with a fetish for guns.

 

[LOki]

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun.

Cost is relative.

To put it as crassly as possible: Compared to the human cost of abortion (for instance), the cost of protecting the human right of personal autonomy through the right to keep and bear arms is a bargain.

There is a cost associated with rights. Anyone who values rights must accept that fact. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.

Over a million defenseless human lives are electively ended every year, euphemistically, under the umbrella of "healthcare." Protected as an exercise of a Right.

That is the accepted cost of preserving the human right to personal autonomy--but only when we're discussing abortion using the best medical practices.

I don't like that cost, but if that's what it takes to prevent the whole of society from turning human beings into brood animals, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then its the price that must be paid.

I get that.

But when we're discussing preserving personal autonomy, through the right to possess the best tools to defend human lives from those with in possession of a perverse entitlement to violence against their fellows, the cost of a few thousand human lives is suddenly unacceptably high.

I don't get that.

Many of those human lives are made defenseless by "reasonable" and/or "common sense" gun control laws enacted by persons with their own sense of entitlement to violence against their constituency. I cite every "gun free zone", " mandatory waiting period", and owner/gun registration law as examples.

These are criminal acts perpetrated against all of us, and most particularly against those amongst us most likely to be the targets of the criminally violent. You know, like children, women, and gay folk.

I'd like to think we all agree that women folk (and all the rest of us) possess the human right to defend themselves with the tool(s) of their individual choosing, against the aggressions of those (and their elected proxies) who consider them (and us) property. I'd like to think we agree that said right--on constiutional AND MORAL criteria--shall not be infringed for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

So, relatively speaking, YES--the few thousand deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for OUR (yours too, Sweetheart) right to own/possess a gun.

You don't have to like that cost; I'm not asking you to like it. I don't like it. But, if that's what it takes to prevent each of us from becoming defenseless victims to the criminally violent; if that's what it takes to prevent all of us from becoming thralls to the first tyrant willing to use coercive force to impose his will upon others; if that's what it takes to preventthe whole of society from turning human beings into beasts of burden, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then thats the price that must be paid.

I've explained this to you before, Cupcake.

Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

No. No one is really opposed to reasonable gun control measures. Not the folks at the NRA, and certainly not me.

What it comes down to is ALL of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are awful.

That's all. Your ideas are awful... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom.

Licensing and registration ARE NOT "reasonable"... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

They're OBVIOUS!

A mother bear protects her cubs,...

With the very best tools available to her... there is no morally valid reason to deny her those tools.

...a herd of elephants protects their young...

With the very best tools available to them... there is no morally valid reason to deny them those tools.

...and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species;...

With the very best tools available to us... there is no morally valid reason to deny us those tools.

...yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs,...

No. My "kind" understand the OBJECTIVELY VALID fact of reality that our gun rights are under attack every time there's an EMOTIONAL response to an act of mass murder that entails an attack on all of our rights the very best tools available to us for the defense of ourselves and others: to "step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species."

...and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

No. No. NO! We just recognize that your speciously "reasonable" solutions are no solutions at all! None of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are solutions to the violence that appalls all of us... NONE OF THEM!

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

GRAND! I'd ask first, "Effective at what?"

I'll just presume you mean reducing the incidence of criminal violence--ALL OF IT, not just the invalid (for OBVIOUS reasons) tautology: gun-violence.

Let's just see what you got.

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

I really have no comment on most of this.

There is no argument made to rebut, but the presumption that what goes on in other nations--what works for them--is appropriate for us, is debateable.

Yet, I find it interesting that they have to qualify the membership of all these comparison nations... why not just assert that the USA is the most gun-crazy and violent nation amongst those who have planted a flag on the moon?

There are other exclusive qualifiers that make just a good sense as "G7 nations" and ""advanced" democracies." Why not compare the USA to ALL the nations?

We all know why.

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

All business written by RFK? I've got no problem with it. I must point out however, that he concerned himself with all kinds of violence... he did NOT arbitrarily identify and single out ONE kind of violence to be put ahead of all others--at the risk of exacerbating those others.

Oh! But then The Globalist chimes in with, "...victim to another callous gun murder..." tacitly confessing that "gun murder" is a special murder--implying that other kinds of murder don't deserve so much our attention. It's OBVIOUS that if RFK had been stabbed, they'd have hunted down some other "gun murder" to wave in our faces.

And then The Globalist states, "We still make it easy for anybody to acquire guns and ammunition." Which is untrue. It is obvious that we tried making it harder and harder for thoughtful, caring, responsible and law-abiding folks to acquire guns and ammunition; while refusing to address thoughtless, careless, irresponsible and criminal people getting guns--and we discovered what was OBVIOUS to all reasonable folks... it doesn't work--for all the OBVIOUS reasons!

And now, while such dopey gun control legislations is being reversed, and our right to keep and bear arms is being upheld more and more often; while the number of guns in private hands is ever increasing... the rate of violence in this country is decreasing. Including the rate of "gun murder."

Then, the Globalist goes full retard: "The NRA is the chief sponsor of gun-induced domestic terrorism." An OBVIOUS lie. O. B. V. I. O. U. S.

After this it's bullshit appeals to emotions... no facts. Until...

"And so it still holds true that Americans find themselves incapable of changing this culture of violence simply by adopting strict gun control laws."

Well, finally a spark of sense.

It's just too bad theses asshats at The Globalist cannot accept that there's an OBVIOUS reason strict gun control laws can have no effect on "this culture of violence."

Perhaps going after just the criminally violent, rather than everyone else might work. Just a thought.

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

The whole "Gun-Deaths" argument = tautology. The entire "gun death" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun-death" so that you can both include deaths that were not caused by guns; and exclude deaths caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun deaths"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

So. What else does The Globalist offer us here?

"As it stands, automobile ownership and operation is far more regulated and licensed in the United States than is gun ownership and usage."

If only that were true.

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

Nothing worth rebutting except: "33,636 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2013."

The reality is that not one person was killed by a gun in 2013. ZERO.

Oh, we all know what you mean... guns were USED to kill 33,636 people in 2013. We know.

How many of those were legitimate self-defense? How many of those were gang-on-gang warfare?

That disingenuous figure fails to tell you that 2/3 of that number were suicides... guns didn't cause those "gun deaths", now did they?

Unless you think they did.

Rather than admit that choosing a gun speaks only to the sincerety of determination to end ones life; rather than thoughtfully examining causes, and validating the pain and desperate despair of the suicidal; you'd rather just blame guns and the NRA to inflate your "gun death" statistic--to advance a gun control argument that has no factual merit.

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links.

I can.

It was easy.

If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

My credibilty is just fine, but yours is already busted, Princess.

Another word which you need to understand is "concise"; a difficult concept for those obsessive compulsive with a fetish for guns.

Your capitulation is noted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun.

Cost is relative.

To put it as crassly as possible: Compared to the human cost of abortion (for instance), the cost of protecting the human right of personal autonomy through the right to keep and bear arms is a bargain.

There is a cost associated with rights. Anyone who values rights must accept that fact. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.

Over a million defenseless human lives are electively ended every year, euphemistically, under the umbrella of "healthcare." Protected as an exercise of a Right.

That is the accepted cost of preserving the human right to personal autonomy--but only when we're discussing abortion using the best medical practices.

I don't like that cost, but if that's what it takes to prevent the whole of society from turning human beings into brood animals, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then its the price that must be paid.

I get that.

But when we're discussing preserving personal autonomy, through the right to possess the best tools to defend human lives from those with in possession of a perverse entitlement to violence against their fellows, the cost of a few thousand human lives is suddenly unacceptably high.

I don't get that.

Many of those human lives are made defenseless by "reasonable" and/or "common sense" gun control laws enacted by persons with their own sense of entitlement to violence against their constituency. I cite every "gun free zone", " mandatory waiting period", and owner/gun registration law as examples.

These are criminal acts perpetrated against all of us, and most particularly against those amongst us most likely to be the targets of the criminally violent. You know, like children, women, and gay folk.

I'd like to think we all agree that women folk (and all the rest of us) possess the human right to defend themselves with the tool(s) of their individual choosing, against the aggressions of those (and their elected proxies) who consider them (and us) property. I'd like to think we agree that said right--on constiutional AND MORAL criteria--shall not be infringed for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

So, relatively speaking, YES--the few thousand deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for OUR (yours too, Sweetheart) right to own/possess a gun.

You don't have to like that cost; I'm not asking you to like it. I don't like it. But, if that's what it takes to prevent each of us from becoming defenseless victims to the criminally violent; if that's what it takes to prevent all of us from becoming thralls to the first tyrant willing to use coercive force to impose his will upon others; if that's what it takes to preventthe whole of society from turning human beings into beasts of burden, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then thats the price that must be paid.

I've explained this to you before, Cupcake.

Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

No. No one is really opposed to reasonable gun control measures. Not the folks at the NRA, and certainly not me.

What it comes down to is ALL of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are awful.

That's all. Your ideas are awful... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom.

Licensing and registration ARE NOT "reasonable"... for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

They're OBVIOUS!

A mother bear protects her cubs,...

With the very best tools available to her... there is no morally valid reason to deny her those tools.

...a herd of elephants protects their young...

With the very best tools available to them... there is no morally valid reason to deny them those tools.

...and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species;...

With the very best tools available to us... there is no morally valid reason to deny us those tools.

...yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs,...

No. My "kind" understand the OBJECTIVELY VALID fact of reality that our gun rights are under attack every time there's an EMOTIONAL response to an act of mass murder that entails an attack on all of our rights the very best tools available to us for the defense of ourselves and others: to "step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species."

...and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

No. No. NO! We just recognize that your speciously "reasonable" solutions are no solutions at all! None of your intellectually, constitutionally, and morally invalid gun-control proposals are solutions to the violence that appalls all of us... NONE OF THEM!

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

GRAND! I'd ask first, "Effective at what?"

I'll just presume you mean reducing the incidence of criminal violence--ALL OF IT, not just the invalid (for OBVIOUS reasons) tautology: gun-violence.

Let's just see what you got.

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

I really have no comment on most of this.

There is no argument made to rebut, but the presumption that what goes on in other nations--what works for them--is appropriate for us, is debateable.

Yet, I find it interesting that they have to qualify the membership of all these comparison nations... why not just assert that the USA is the most gun-crazy and violent nation amongst those who have planted a flag on the moon?

There are other exclusive qualifiers that make just a good sense as "G7 nations" and ""advanced" democracies." Why not compare the USA to ALL the nations?

We all know why.

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

All business written by RFK? I've got no problem with it. I must point out however, that he concerned himself with all kinds of violence... he did NOT arbitrarily identify and single out ONE kind of violence to be put ahead of all others--at the risk of exacerbating those others.

Oh! But then The Globalist chimes in with, "...victim to another callous gun murder..." tacitly confessing that "gun murder" is a special murder--implying that other kinds of murder don't deserve so much our attention. It's OBVIOUS that if RFK had been stabbed, they'd have hunted down some other "gun murder" to wave in our faces.

And then The Globalist states, "We still make it easy for anybody to acquire guns and ammunition." Which is untrue. It is obvious that we tried making it harder and harder for thoughtful, caring, responsible and law-abiding folks to acquire guns and ammunition; while refusing to address thoughtless, careless, irresponsible and criminal people getting guns--and we discovered what was OBVIOUS to all reasonable folks... it doesn't work--for all the OBVIOUS reasons!

And now, while such dopey gun control legislations is being reversed, and our right to keep and bear arms is being upheld more and more often; while the number of guns in private hands is ever increasing... the rate of violence in this country is decreasing. Including the rate of "gun murder."

Then, the Globalist goes full retard: "The NRA is the chief sponsor of gun-induced domestic terrorism." An OBVIOUS lie. O. B. V. I. O. U. S.

After this it's bullshit appeals to emotions... no facts. Until...

"And so it still holds true that Americans find themselves incapable of changing this culture of violence simply by adopting strict gun control laws."

Well, finally a spark of sense.

It's just too bad theses asshats at The Globalist cannot accept that there's an OBVIOUS reason strict gun control laws can have no effect on "this culture of violence."

Perhaps going after just the criminally violent, rather than everyone else might work. Just a thought.

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

The whole "Gun-Deaths" argument = tautology. The entire "gun death" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun-death" so that you can both include deaths that were not caused by guns; and exclude deaths caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun deaths"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

So. What else does The Globalist offer us here?

"As it stands, automobile ownership and operation is far more regulated and licensed in the United States than is gun ownership and usage."

If only that were true.

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

Nothing worth rebutting except: "33,636 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2013."

The reality is that not one person was killed by a gun in 2013. ZERO.

Oh, we all know what you mean... guns were USED to kill 33,636 people in 2013. We know.

How many of those were legitimate self-defense? How many of those were gang-on-gang warfare?

That disingenuous figure fails to tell you that 2/3 of that number were suicides... guns didn't cause those "gun deaths", now did they?

Unless you think they did.

Rather than admit that choosing a gun speaks only to the sincerety of determination to end ones life; rather than thoughtfully examining causes, and validating the pain and desperate despair of the suicidal; you'd rather just blame guns and the NRA to inflate your "gun death" statistic--to advance a gun control argument that has no factual merit.

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links.

I can.

It was easy.

If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

My credibilty is just fine, but yours is already busted, Princess.

Another word which you need to understand is "concise"; a difficult concept for those obsessive compulsive with a fetish for guns.

Your capitulation is noted.

Thanks for sharing, but you're wrong, I wouldn't surrender to one of the exceptions.

Q. Admit you sleep with your gun, cuddle it and stroke it as you dream of being a vigilante and hailed as a hero for killing a bad guy?

 

[Donald Polish]

People can use the traumatic weapons, for example

 

[2aguy]

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

JimBowie - The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

So now you say that laws do prevent crime? Shit, will you make your fucking mind up already?

Are you stupid, or simply a game player?

Laws don't prevent crime. Period.

People obey the law because they believe it benefits the culture; some people don't. Some people obey the law for fear of the punishment.

Some people don't give a fuck about the law, nor do they fear punishment.

That's obvious to most people in most cultures. The exceptions are sociopaths (aka those with personality disorders), anarchists, terrorists, garden variety criminals and morons.

Yeah…you seem to understand how laws actually work…and then you are completely clueless in how they work the same way for gun crimes………that is where your brain is broken….

 

[buddhallah_the_christ]

every day the same news...

 

[JimBowie1958]

every day the same news...

and that is the intent as you are distracted from the Big Money issues that the corporations really care about.