They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[The Rabbi]

Alrady answered.

Got it

They Don t Care Who Has A Gun Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Laws against rape and murder are clearly ineffective at their purpose, (plenty of rapes and murders out there) so they shouldn't exist.

No, you ar wrong. This is because you are stupid.
Laws against rape and murder are effective at their purpose. Because their purpose is not to prevent the act but to punish those who commit it. Unlike gun laws whose purpose is to prevent something that criminals will not be deterred by anyway.
Tell me, what harm is caused by a criminal carrying a firearm? The answer is none btw.

So laws against rape and murder have nothing to do with preventing either? That's just stupid.

The purpose is not to prevent them but to punish those who commit them.

Rabbi.......You lost this one. You can go on forever repeating the same silly things with different words, but you still lost this one. Walk away, get something to drink, and come back refreshed with a different subject. Perhaps something about birther claims, or black helicopters, but this one is in the can.

I see you are so desperate you are declaring victory, unable to counter my facts and logic.

 

[FA_Q2]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

That assertion is not backed up by facts.

The fist problem that you have failed to address (and has been pointed out many times) is that the law is completely unenforceable. Tell me, how is a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED supposed to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns?

Second, there is no data showing that further gun control measures will do squat to reduce crime or homicides. What is the ultimate goal here? If it is safety then gun control falls flat on its face.

The ultimate goal of any gun control measure must be to reduce crime. This is most easily measured in homicides as that is the most prevalent target of gun control:

England outright banned guns and the effect on homicides? Zero. That is the base problem that you have with gun control laws - if you are willing to commit homicide or any other major offense then the extra law that says you cant have a gun is utterly meaningless - period. This has flushed out a myriad of places all across the globe as well as here. All your assertions are NOT backed up by any hard data.

And England is moving for more restrictive laws - if it doesn't work we can always try more right? That is exactly what gun control advocates want here. We have a shit ton of gun control laws on the books and all you can come up with is more that is not effective in the first place.

If outright banning does nothing, what makes you think that background checks that are completely unenforceable will be effective?

 

[FA_Q2]

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

so there shouldn't be any laws because some bad guys do bad things?

okie dokie.

Uh? Typical response from the retarded poseur of this board.
If a law is ineffective at its purpose it shouldnt exist.

I still gotta ask about your thoughts on rape or murder. Obviously, those laws aren't 100% effective, so should we just take them off the books?

Straw man AND argumentum ad absurdum, two fallacies in a single statement. No one, anywhere, is demanding that laws be 100 percent effective. That is simply asinine. Further, what makes you think that rape and murder laws are not effective? They are very effective. Very few people murder or rape and those that do are removed from the streets and the rest of us are safer for it.

Gun control laws, on the other hand? Not effective at all. There is no data showing that further gun control laws will prevent anything whatsoever. That, the ENTIRE basis of the gun control argument, is an assertion based on nothing whatsoever. That is where all your arguments fail.

 

[BULLDOG]

Great, now we are getting somewhere. How exactly is a person selling a gun supposed to know if that person is prohibited? Do we just depend on the prohibited person being honest enough to tell the seller?

They dont. BUt maybe they dont care because they are prohibited themselves.

I'm guessing that the large majority of people selling used guns probably aren't prohibited. Do you have any reason to believe they are?

Doesnt matter. A large majority of criminals buy their guns from other criminals who in turn stole them from honest citizns. That is in fact the main way guns get into criminals' hands. Which law do you propose that will stop that from occurring?

You got anything to back that up?

Sure.
Bureau of Justice Statistics BJS - Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes 2005-2010

Good information there about guns being stolen, and how many burglaries and thefts involving stolen firearms get reported, but nothing about that being the main way bad guys get their guns. You got anything else?

 

[SwimExpert]

Not necessarily. No court has ever provided definitive guidance on this question. Most likely and either/or law would satisfy constitutional requirements. A ban on open carry would be okay as long as conceal carry is unobstructed.

I disagree.

A law against concealment would probably survive a legitimate Constitutional test, but prohibition of open carry is a blatant violation of "bearing arms."

Not if concealment remains a freely available option. You have a right to keep and bear your own body. You don't have a right to keep and bare your body without concealment.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it

They Don t Care Who Has A Gun Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Laws against rape and murder are clearly ineffective at their purpose, (plenty of rapes and murders out there) so they shouldn't exist.

No, you ar wrong. This is because you are stupid.
Laws against rape and murder are effective at their purpose. Because their purpose is not to prevent the act but to punish those who commit it. Unlike gun laws whose purpose is to prevent something that criminals will not be deterred by anyway.
Tell me, what harm is caused by a criminal carrying a firearm? The answer is none btw.

So laws against rape and murder have nothing to do with preventing either? That's just stupid.

The purpose is not to prevent them but to punish those who commit them.

Rabbi.......You lost this one. You can go on forever repeating the same silly things with different words, but you still lost this one. Walk away, get something to drink, and come back refreshed with a different subject. Perhaps something about birther claims, or black helicopters, but this one is in the can.

I see you are so desperate you are declaring victory, unable to counter my facts and logic.

I'm not declaring anything, other than to say none of your claims stand up to scrutiny. If you want to be just another crazy teabagger who is reduced to calling names when their silly claims don't hold water go ahead. I personally thought you were better than that, but it's your choice.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

That assertion is not backed up by facts.

The fist problem that you have failed to address (and has been pointed out many times) is that the law is completely unenforceable. Tell me, how is a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED supposed to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns?

Second, there is no data showing that further gun control measures will do squat to reduce crime or homicides. What is the ultimate goal here? If it is safety then gun control falls flat on its face.

The ultimate goal of any gun control measure must be to reduce crime. This is most easily measured in homicides as that is the most prevalent target of gun control:

England outright banned guns and the effect on homicides? Zero. That is the base problem that you have with gun control laws - if you are willing to commit homicide or any other major offense then the extra law that says you cant have a gun is utterly meaningless - period. This has flushed out a myriad of places all across the globe as well as here. All your assertions are NOT backed up by any hard data.

And England is moving for more restrictive laws - if it doesn't work we can always try more right? That is exactly what gun control advocates want here. We have a shit ton of gun control laws on the books and all you can come up with is more that is not effective in the first place.

If outright banning does nothing, what makes you think that background checks that are completely unenforceable will be effective?

So you don't think that reducing the places a thug can buy a gun will have any effect on how many guns they can buy? I have nothing to say to that other than I disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

Wait... you think its hard to make a barrel and breech block out of metal?

With the proper equipment, you can, and always have been able to make anything you want. I thought you were discussing how you think that very soon everybody will be able to just whip out a usable gun on their personal 3D printer. What is possible is far from what is common place, or even will be common place in the near future. You don't understand that?

-I- wasn't discussing anything in regards to 3D printing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the one thing bush the baby will be remembered for is destroying our courts with winger appointments.

You post bits like this and then claim to have been accepted to a university?

 

[BULLDOG]

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

so there shouldn't be any laws because some bad guys do bad things?

okie dokie.

Uh? Typical response from the retarded poseur of this board.
If a law is ineffective at its purpose it shouldnt exist.

I still gotta ask about your thoughts on rape or murder. Obviously, those laws aren't 100% effective, so should we just take them off the books?

Straw man AND argumentum ad absurdum, two fallacies in a single statement. No one, anywhere, is demanding that laws be 100 percent effective. That is simply asinine. Further, what makes you think that rape and murder laws are not effective? They are very effective. Very few people murder or rape and those that do are removed from the streets and the rest of us are safer for it.

Gun control laws, on the other hand? Not effective at all. There is no data showing that further gun control laws will prevent anything whatsoever. That, the ENTIRE basis of the gun control argument, is an assertion based on nothing whatsoever. That is where all your arguments fail.

My God......One teabagger looked at his kids debate handbook, so now all of them think they are experts on debate techniques. Just because there is a chorus of gun nuts shouting "IT WON"T WORK" doesn't mean there is no reason to support reasonable laws for gun control. Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a poll from Quinnipiac University.
Poll 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks TheHill
The NRA's death grip on right wing politicians is the only thing preventing a law that the vast majority of Americans want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, mills,. lathes, and the like are more and more common in home shops. Heck, you can get them-new-for under $700. People aren't machining their own receivers because it's just easier to buy one.
Of course...you can buy an "80% lower" for under $50 and finish it yourself.

Communists seek to crush civil rights. But democrats are stupid, what they do fails every time it's tried.
Bulldog dreams of the old USSR, but it will never happen. The technology that the authoritarians praise for tracking and monitoring the subjects, also makes it impossible to keep arms from the enslaved populace.

you don't have any right to unfettered ownership of weapons.

I know you hate the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
But, it -is- a fact, no matter how butt-hurt you are about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.
The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.
You figure it out.

You post this as if it hasn't already been addressed and negated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because there is a chorus of gun nuts shouting "IT WON"T WORK" doesn't mean there is no reason to support reasonable laws for gun control.

Gun control laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose aren't reasonable.
UBC cannot be enforced, and so, necessarily, restricts the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose.
/dicussion

Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales,

Fallacy: appeal to popularity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not necessarily. No court has ever provided definitive guidance on this question. Most likely and either/or law would satisfy constitutional requirements. A ban on open carry would be okay as long as conceal carry is unobstructed.

I disagree.
A law against concealment would probably survive a legitimate Constitutional test, but prohibition of open carry is a blatant violation of "bearing arms."

Hmm... federal appeals court ruled that the IL ban against concealed carry violates the 2nd.
This is why IL is now a shall-issue state.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

Wait... you think its hard to make a barrel and breech block out of metal?

With the proper equipment, you can, and always have been able to make anything you want. I thought you were discussing how you think that very soon everybody will be able to just whip out a usable gun on their personal 3D printer. What is possible is far from what is common place, or even will be common place in the near future. You don't understand that?

-I- wasn't discussing anything in regards to 3D printing.

Well, I was, and you jumped in soooo.

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually, mills,. lathes, and the like are more and more common in home shops. Heck, you can get them-new-for under $700. People aren't machining their own receivers because it's just easier to buy one.
Of course...you can buy an "80% lower" for under $50 and finish it yourself.

Communists seek to crush civil rights. But democrats are stupid, what they do fails every time it's tried.
Bulldog dreams of the old USSR, but it will never happen. The technology that the authoritarians praise for tracking and monitoring the subjects, also makes it impossible to keep arms from the enslaved populace.

you don't have any right to unfettered ownership of weapons.

I know you hate the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
But, it -is- a fact, no matter how butt-hurt you are about it.

Again, another teabagger who is totally convinced of something that just isn't true. If I believed half the crap you think I believe, I wouldn't like me either. There is a huge difference between wanting reasonable gun controls and wanting to eliminate the Second Amendment.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you often argue with the voices in your head?

 

[BULLDOG]

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.
The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.
You figure it out.

You post this as if it hasn't already been addressed and negated.

Please inform me of all the requirements that the NRA supports concerning gun sales other than from licensed dealers. How are they trying to keep thugs from buying any guns from an unlicensed seller?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know you hate the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
But, it -is- a fact, no matter how butt-hurt you are about it.

Again, another teabagger who is totally convinced of something that just isn't true

What part of my post isn't true?

 

[BULLDOG]

I know you hate the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
But, it -is- a fact, no matter how butt-hurt you are about it.

Again, another teabagger who is totally convinced of something that just isn't true

What part of my post isn't true?

This part
"I know you hate the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."