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

[P@triot]

Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.

No kidding, this whole thread is based on that. That wasn't the question. How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax? Read the op.

Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.

That's akin to saying there are "too many loopholes in the cocaine laws". There are no loopholes, it is completely outlawed - yet cocaine is still rampant. And you can't explain that and are too immature to admit it. So instead you make snarky comments and run away because you we've proven you are wrong and you know it.

 

[kaz]

Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.

No kidding, this whole thread is based on that. That wasn't the question. How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax? Read the op.

Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.

You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute. Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention? What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer. When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.

 

[Bumberclyde]

No kidding, this whole thread is based on that. That wasn't the question. How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax? Read the op.

Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.

You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute. Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention? What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer. When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

 

[P@triot]

Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.

You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute. Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention? What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer. When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

Yeah, because when you need to draw your firearm, the murderous thug will gladly wait as you punch in your "access code"....

It never ceases to truly amaze me how Dumbocrats are happy to play "expert" on subjects they are completely ignorant of.

If you can't stop the black market from supplying cocaine and prostitution, how can you be so incredibly ignorant as to believe you can stop it from supplying guns?

 

[Bumberclyde]

You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute. Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention? What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer. When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

Yeah, because when you need to draw your firearm, the murderous thug will gladly wait as you punch in your "access code"....

It never ceases to truly amaze me how Dumbocrats are happy to play "expert" on subjects they are completely ignorant of.

If you can't stop the black market from supplying cocaine and prostitution, how can you be so incredibly ignorant as to believe you can stop it from supplying guns?

You could punch the code in as you leave your house, geez, you're not very bright, are you? but if it's stolen... they couldn't use it.

Drugs are made and sold by evildoers. Guns are made and sold by supposedly law-abiding Americans who should want to help, instead of just making as much money as they can by practically selling anything to anyone.

 

[candycorn]

Buttsoiler's vision of how the world works:

[​

Yeah, good thinking asshole.

Pretty much.

 

[candycorn]

Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible. If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else. [sarcasm intentional]

So again, if you get shot, it's your fault? Is that what you're saying?

It depends CC. In most cases (such as Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado, etc.) it's the fault of Dumbocrats who create victim zones for the carnage pleasure of societies maniacs.

In some cases, it was the fault of the person who got shot for not taking the necessary precautions. You and you alone are responsible for your security (and therein lies the problem - Dumbocrats refuse to accept personal responsibility). Not society. Not law enforcement. You.

So democrats are always at fault unless it's the victims? And the "good" parents who let the kids assemble an arsenal and bring it to school? Democrats as well?

That sound you hear is your argument falling apart.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun. You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime. You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime. You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever. Murder doesn't have to be involved.

Again, if capital punishment can't deter people from murdering, how do you figure that "federal crime" of 10 years will deter someone from using a gun?

Please tell me this is an act CC. Nobody could be this stupid. Nobody.

233-200

Capital punishment isn't a deterrent for numerous reasons. Serious jail time for what a bunch of thugs see as minor crime is a different kettle of fish. Now if you break into someone's house and brandish a firearm, you're gone for a round number of years. That simple armed robbery is now a one way ticket to a federal pen.

Actaully, you're living proof that stupidity knows no bounds.

332-206. Scoreboard

 

[candycorn]

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun. You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime. You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime. You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever. Murder doesn't have to be involved.

Oh - and one more thing CC. By your "logic", all we need to do is make cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, LSD, PCP, rape, assault, domestic violence, battery, and prostitution a "federal crime" and none of them will ever occur again, right?

I mean, sure, the death penalty doesn't stop people from committing murder. But a 10 year sentence? Well hot damn is that going to deter people!

233-200

There is a correlation between consequences and actions. You're right the death penalty is no deterrent as has been proven over and over. But sentences for lesser crimes are often reduced by parole and over-crowding. You don't have that in Federal Prison.

332-206. Scoreboard.

​

 

[kaz]

Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.

You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute. Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention? What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer. When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

OK, Dude, the op addresses that. You are doing the pot solution. Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.

 

[Bumberclyde]

You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute. Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention? What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer. When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

OK, Dude, the op addresses that. You are doing the pot solution. Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

 

[kaz]

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

OK, Dude, the op addresses that. You are doing the pot solution. Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

 

[Pogo]

OK, Dude, the op addresses that. You are doing the pot solution. Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Good. Very good.

Now take the next step....

If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it. If anything it makes it more popular.

So how would you do it?

You'd eliminate the desire, that's how. You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in. You'd spread the word about the negative sides. When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation. You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.

Take the example of tobacco. It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting. We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents. We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable. That's a cultural shift. A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.

Apply that to gun violence. Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post. Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.

There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia. People do that en masse. When the people lead, all those institutions follow. They have no other choice. It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".

I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values. We are a culture of death. That is what needs to change. The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity. Once it is, gun violence goes way down.

That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death. And that presumption is absurd.

 

[Bumberclyde]

OK, Dude, the op addresses that. You are doing the pot solution. Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Comparing getting high to getting killed?

 

[Pogo]

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Comparing getting high to getting killed?

That too. False comparison.

But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.

We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire). Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem. Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.

Now we did take that approach to drunk driving. It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be. Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the public.

If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Comparing getting high to getting killed?

That too. False comparison.

But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.

We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire). Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem. Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.

Now we did take that approach to drunk driving. It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be. Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the public.

If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

 

[Pogo]

Comparing getting high to getting killed?

That too. False comparison.

But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.

We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire). Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem. Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.

Now we did take that approach to drunk driving. It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be. Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the public.

If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

You would have us believe firearm violence has been reduced?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson. I didn't say it eliminated these things. That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic. That's the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.

 

[kaz]

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Good. Very good.

Now take the next step....

If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it. If anything it makes it more popular.

So how would you do it?

You'd eliminate the desire, that's how. You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in. You'd spread the word about the negative sides. When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation. You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.

Take the example of tobacco. It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting. We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents. We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable. That's a cultural shift. A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.

Apply that to gun violence. Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post. Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.

There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia. People do that en masse. When the people lead, all those institutions follow. They have no other choice. It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".

I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values. We are a culture of death. That is what needs to change. The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity. Once it is, gun violence goes way down.

That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death. And that presumption is absurd.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work. People should be able to defend themselves. They should.

Tobacco is a good point to bring up. In the late eighties, my wife and I came home every night with our hair, clothing, stinking of cigarettes. And we didn't smoke. If other people want to do stupid things that's fine, but we wanted the right to not smoke. So did the majority.

I'm not sure I see it parlaying cleanly to drugs or guns. You only associate guns with violence, but I see that as a minor use. I see it primarily as sporting, hunting and collecting. And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns. So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan. And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.

 

[kaz]

It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Comparing getting high to getting killed?

How does this apply to the discussion? You need to just make your liberal snarky ignorant comments on their own and not quote me as if it's relevant to anything we are discussing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.

Yeah, because when you need to draw your firearm, the murderous thug will gladly wait as you punch in your "access code"....

It never ceases to truly amaze me how Dumbocrats are happy to play "expert" on subjects they are completely ignorant of.

If you can't stop the black market from supplying cocaine and prostitution, how can you be so incredibly ignorant as to believe you can stop it from supplying guns?

You could punch the code in as you leave your house, geez, you're not very bright, are you? but if it's stolen... they couldn't use it.

Drugs are made and sold by evildoers. Guns are made and sold by supposedly law-abiding Americans who should want to help, instead of just making as much money as they can by practically selling anything to anyone.

It never ceases to amaze me, how people with sufficient intellectual means to type, are incapable of valid reasoning.

Making money is how we sustain ourselves.

If they planted gun seeds and toiled in the fields, nurturing their Guns, using some for themselves and trading the rest to others who had 'grown' other stuff they needed to survive and to help make life more enjoyable, would your argument change in the slightest?

NO! You're argument would remain the same, it just wouldn't be as easy to deceive others, because most of us eat.

So let's dispatch this nonsense of 'its the money'.

Now, guns are a tool. And that's all they are.

They are a highly effective means to destroying other animals that threaten you or the innocent within your immediate presence.

Like ANY OTHER TOOL, they're misused.

So the issue now comes to what is the best way to ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NOT MISUSE and ABUSE THEIR TOOLS?

Reason requires that there is no way to stop abuse. Just as there is no way to stop disease, or accidents. So we're left to consider ways which will promote the fewest incidences of abuse as is possible.

So let's compare the locations with the most abuse per capita, with the lowest.

The highest rate of abuse is found in population centers governed by Collectivists. Collectivism rests in Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity which is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Those who do not adhere to objective truth, are not trustworthy.

Those who are untrustworthy are prone to criminal behavior.

Therefore, Collectivism; Progressivism (Fascism, Crony Capitalism), Liberalism, Socialism, Communism PRODUCE MORE CRIMINALS.

The Lowest rate of abuse is in small town USA, where people govern themselves, through the adherence to natural law, the golden rule and largely through the tenets of Judea-Christianity.

Judea-Christianity observes and otherwise adheres to objective reason.

Those who reason objectively, recognize truth, thus are worthy of trust, and tend to be empathetic to others, bearing their right sustaining responsibilities, declared in American Principle.

American principle therefore, produce STARKLY FEWER CRIMINALS!

So the best means to get guns out of the hands of criminals is to: PRODUCE FEWER CRIMINALS and the best means to produce fewer criminals is to adhere to American Principle, thus rejecting Collectivism.