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

[MarcATL]

They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.

The majority of gun deaths are

Suicides
Accidents
Murder by acquaintance.

Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.

Not in the minds of the far RW radical gun nutters.

 

[RKMBrown]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html

Licenses, fees, taxes, mandated insurance. Yeah those will and have been the way libtards restrict our rights for everything. Not rocket science and not worthy of creating your own thread and poaching from this one. You already have homeowner's insurance, and corporations and other entities already have insurance to cover use of guns and gun accidents.

 

[RKMBrown]

They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.

The majority of gun deaths are

Suicides
Accidents
Murder by acquaintance.

Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.

Not in the minds of the far RW radical gun nutters.

Still proving yourself to be a partisan retard.

 

[Ernie S.]

[

Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?

I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.

No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.

Yeah, I probably could.

But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.

Holmes was being thrown out of the university.

Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.

A far more effective solution would be to prohibit 1/8 of the US population from owning guns, right down to warrantless searches of homes vehicles and persons.

The problem is that would be just as unconstitutional as your solution. The difference is that it would cut the murder rate in half, while your solution would have saved 50 or 60 lives.

 

[Ernie S.]

They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.

The majority of gun deaths are

Suicides
Accidents
Murder by acquaintance.

Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.

When they call murder by rival gang members murder by an aquaintance, it skews your numbers all to hell.
You are not going to cut down on suicides significantly by getting rid of guns. Guns only make suicide more efficient.
It also could be argued that there is essentially no such thing as a gun accident. Sure, careless owners accidentally discharge a weapon or leave weapons where kids can get at them, but guns don't go off by themselves.
The only time I've ever seen a gun go off without the trigger being pulled was in a house fire. That pretty much sucked but I did manage to retrieve and repair the 1911 and I carried it for a number of years

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?

I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.

No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.

Yeah, I probably could.

But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.

Holmes was being thrown out of the university.

Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.

Make the officials that FAILED to do their jobs in reporting the individuals pay. We already have laws on the books preventing such people from owning firearms.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?

I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.

No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.

Yeah, I probably could.

But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.

Holmes was being thrown out of the university.

Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.

You sound like a broken record.

 

[Toro]

dp

 

[JoeB131]

[

A far more effective solution would be to prohibit 1/8 of the US population from owning guns, right down to warrantless searches of homes vehicles and persons.

The problem is that would be just as unconstitutional as your solution. The difference is that it would cut the murder rate in half, while your solution would have saved 50 or 60 lives.

I wonder which "1/8"th your talking about...

Never mind, I'm pretty sure I don't want to know, and I'll just go back to ignoring your racist ass.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Make the officials that FAILED to do their jobs in reporting the individuals pay. We already have laws on the books preventing such people from owning firearms.

Laws that the gun manufacturers make sure aren't enforced and the gun sellers ignore.

Incidently, I agree, there should be a stricter reporting system of flagging the mentally ill and that HIPA shouldn't apply.

BUt again, the gun industry has no interest in keeping these weapons out of the wrong hands. IN fact, they have EVERY interest in keeping them there.

As long as Criminals and the mentally ill have them, so will a lot of other fools who really think they can have protection when one of them sets it off around them.

Think of it like selling weapons to both sides in a war.

 

[Edgetho]

[

Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?

I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.

No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.

Yeah, I probably could.

But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.

Holmes was being thrown out of the university.

Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.

And there you have it, folks.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.

They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......

But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --

dimocraps lie. It's what they do. They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values

They want confiscation. Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional

 

[JoeB131]

[

Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?

I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.

No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.

Yeah, I probably could.

But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.

Holmes was being thrown out of the university.

Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.

And there you have it, folks.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.

They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......

But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --

dimocraps lie. It's what they do. They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values

They want confiscation. Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional

Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.

And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.

The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all. You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.

 

[editec]

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

When someone is found to be a vilent criminal? Chp off their hands.

Next Question?

How will society cope with the now huge number of nasty people without any hands?

 

[kaz]

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Guns are different exactly how?

They're not a lot different.

But you're confusing Civil Liability with criminal liability.

In a Car Crash, you are negligent if you are deemed to be more than 50% at fault. It's called comparative negligence.

In a gun shooting, odds are pretty good that someone broke the law.

If it's in a "Castle Doctrine" case and the Homeowner didn't break the law but negligently shot someone, he can be sued and damages collected.

If he broke the law and illegally shot someone....

He can be successfully sued, but his Insurance Company usually won't defend him and usually won't pay damages. Not in my State. He can spend a LONG time in Jail, but that's about it.

There are ALWAYS exceptions to these guidelines, but generally speaking, I'm right. Such as if it's a Joint Policy and the Husband shoots somebody and the victim plans on taking everything they own, the Insurance Company may decide to defend the Wife's interests in the Policy Coverages and try to reach a financial settlement

But that's above my pay grade.

I am a retired, 25 year, Property and Casualty Agent. I have schooled Attorneys on Legal Liability on a couple of occasions (though I wouldn't pretend to know more than ANY Attorney on the General Subject).

I know what I'm talking about.

Frankly, you don't

Listen, pay attention, learn. It's the best thing you can do for yourself right now.

What you said is completely reasonable and logical. However, you're over thinking Candy's post. It's hard not to. But she is actually talking about liability insurance.

She's saying that anyone who is a victim needs to be compensated. If anyone needs to be compensated and there is no one to do so, then it's the job of government to confiscate money from us at gunpoint and compensate them.

So, by requiring liability insurance, she's actually protecting us from having to compensate shooting victims. In a twisted way, she's actually trying to save us money. I know that the cost of the insurance also comes from us as well, so she didn't actually save us anything, but that's beyond her comprehension, as I said, you can't over think it.

 

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html

I see. No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun. Genius, pure genius.

And then when you still prevented anyone from shooting back and in typical liberal fashion maximized the carnage, it's cool because their families will get some bucks for your death.

You just can't make up what liberals actually believe.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html

I see. No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun. Genius, pure genius.

i still hold to the idea

that those that maintain a gun free zone should be required to carry insurance

after all they imply that we are save in such zones

 

[RKMBrown]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html

I see. No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun. Genius, pure genius.

i still hold to the idea

that those that maintain a gun free zone should be required to carry insurance

after all they imply that we are save in such zones

Name one gun free zone that is uninsured.

 

[candycorn]

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Please explain where the compensation should come from. Mom is dead. Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case. The perp is dead too.

Your move.

Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.

But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up? What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke? Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?

Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?

Please explain where the compensation should come from

Still your move.

 

[candycorn]

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Most guns aren't involved in accidents either. Most aren't even used in violent crimes.

Guns are different exactly how?

They're not. It's the circumstances that are different. A few pages back I responded to you explaining this, but you may have missed it. You're saying people should carry liability insureance for guns like cars. I believe you said you wanted this in case the insured went and shot a bunch of people up with their gun, the victims could get money from the gun owner's insurance, right? That's a different scenario than the circumstances under which liability insurance kicks in on your car. There is a difference between being at fault for an act and intentionally commiting an act. Your liability insurance on your car kicked in because you were at fault in your accident, but just because you were at fault doesn't mean you intended to cause the accident. Taking a life has the same legal distinction where we have murder vs. manslaughter. Murder requires intent where manslaughter is usually about accidental negligence. Had you had intent to hurt someone with your vehicle like the person with the gun in your hypothetical, your liability insurance would have nothing to do with that. The only thing that would probably happen would be you getting dropped from your plan. Your auto liability doesn't pay out to the victim or victim's family if you intentionally run someone over. Compensation in that instance would be handled by the courts. This is why your liability insurance idea won't work, again, because that's not what liability insurance covers.

No...

If the insured's gun is used in a crime...yes as in Sandy Hook.

The effect is a win-win. The victims get some form of material compensation and the move retards gun ownership.

 

[candycorn]

No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.

Yeah, I probably could.

But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.

Holmes was being thrown out of the university.

Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.

And there you have it, folks.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.

They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......

But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --

dimocraps lie. It's what they do. They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values

They want confiscation. Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional

Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.

And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.

The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all. You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.

In a nutshell; you're right.

What I always find amazing is that many are afraid of the government but want to spend more on defense...which is what they're afraid the government is going to use to assault them and their liberties.

As I said about 100 times; obviously the European countries are doing something very right and we're doing something very wrong.

The only major difference is that we have a 2nd Amendment written prior to the invention of the zipper and these other nations do not. That and we have "elements" in our country I'm told; whatever that means.