Question for gun grabbing liberals

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think than anyone who KNOWINGLY sells a gun to a felon or has reason to believe it will be used in a crime should be prosecuted.

beyond that I dont think we should regulate it. But make the penalty substantial. Ie accessory to murder, robbery, etc if the gun is used in a crime by the person it was sold to.

that's utterly retarded. getting a death sentence for that would be like getting struck by lightning. there should be one penalty for giving a felon a gun, and it shouldn't hinge on whether or not or what crime the gun was for.

 

[PorterM]

Ohh you mean the tinfoil hat pinhead view of gun control ? Only nuts believe this will happen.

How do you take away the guns from Law Abiding citizens? You first have a registration so you know who owns the guns. This makes it very easy to come by your home and collect the guns that are not endangering anyone. Criminals do not normally register their guns which makes removing guns from the criminal element impossible.

 

[Good Luck]

Guns are a trivial issue in this country, the only reason one even hears about them is to keep the simpleminded occupied while the crooks rob and steal the US blind.

Any time government finds a "reasonable" excuse to "reasonably" limit, change, violate, or otherwise alter constitutionally guaranteed liberties, it is a big deal. Those liberties, and the limits placed on government by the Constitution to assure those liberties remain, are the very basis of our society.

The only ones claiming that gun control (or any other liberty) is a "non-issue" are the ones who want to blind side society with their totalitarian laws. Economies fluctuate up and down regardless of the type of government they are running under. But freedoms - once given over to government in the name of safety, will only be regained by violent revolution. Government will never freely give back a freedom once it has been removed for the "good" of the people.

 

[Cancel3]

Any time government finds a "reasonable" excuse to "reasonably" limit, change, violate, or otherwise alter constitutionally guaranteed liberties, it is a big deal. Those liberties, and the limits placed on government by the Constitution to assure those liberties remain, are the very basis of our society.

The only ones claiming that gun control (or any other liberty) is a "non-issue" are the ones who want to blind side society with their totalitarian laws. Economies fluctuate up and down regardless of the type of government they are running under. But freedoms - once given over to government in the name of safety, will only be regained by violent revolution. Government will never freely give back a freedom once it has been removed for the "good" of the people.

Well said, GoodLuck. I agree with you.

 

[Good Luck]

Frankly, I don't know enough about D.C., but I also doubt that you do. It's typical of righties to try to draw linear causation without any sort of consideration of the many factors that could contribute to a stat like that. It's like saying "Bush made us safer" because we haven't had a domestic attack since 9/11.

Do you really think things like waiting periods, registration & background checks "don't work?" Do you believe in an America without any gun control, where anyone can walk into Wal-Mart & buy an automatic weapon off the shelves, without even having to show their license?

The original post in no way tried to indicate a linear cause/effect relationship. Instead, what the statement does is REFUTE the cause/effect relationship (legal access to guns is related to gun violence levels) used in the justification of tight gun control laws.

In reality it is the gun control advocates who are using a linear causation conclusion when defending gun control. The basis for gun control laws is that legal access to guns is directly attributable to gun violence levels. The expectation then is that limiting access will therefore reduce gun violence. But no gun control laws have managed to show such a result.

But when defenders of gun rights mention that gun control laws do not work, somehow it is they who are depending on linear causation claims? Sorry, that is plain false.

 

[Good Luck]

Any time government finds a "reasonable" excuse to "reasonably" limit, change, violate, or otherwise alter constitutionally guaranteed liberties, it is a big deal. Those liberties, and the limits placed on government by the Constitution to assure those liberties remain, are the very basis of our society.

The only ones claiming that gun control (or any other liberty) is a "non-issue" are the ones who want to blind side society with their totalitarian laws. Economies fluctuate up and down regardless of the type of government they are running under. But freedoms - once given over to government in the name of safety, will only be regained by violent revolution. Government will never freely give back a freedom once it has been removed for the "good" of the people.

This is why I take strong exception to what Obama said in Pennsylvania that gained so much (brief) notariety. But NOT because it was (mildly) insulting - which is why it gained notariety - but rather because Obama's statement implied the attitude that concern over gun rights or freedom of religion etc. are not legitimate issues. That attitude is mistaken. Freedoms are ALWAYS legitimate issues.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How do you take away the guns from Law Abiding citizens? You first have a registration so you know who owns the guns. This makes it very easy to come by your home and collect the guns that are not endangering anyone. Criminals do not normally register their guns which makes removing guns from the criminal element impossible.

You forget that almost half of all crimes are committed by people with no prior criminal record. Whenever a formerly law-abiding wife gets angry and shoots her husband in the head, does she suddenly enter this "criminal element" world that you are talking about, you simple minded fool?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In reality it is the gun control advocates who are using a linear causation conclusion when defending gun control. The basis for gun control laws is that legal access to guns is directly attributable to gun violence levels. The expectation then is that limiting access will therefore reduce gun violence. But no gun control laws have managed to show such a result.

Well that seems more like an assumption that a fact.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Guns are a trivial issue in this country, the only reason one even hears about them is to keep the simpleminded occupied while the crooks rob and steal the US blind.

Okay, who left the door open so that Middie could stumble in from FP? You people need to be more careful in the future!

 

[Canceled.LTroll.29]

"Almost half of all crimes are committed by people with no prior criminal record", eh?

Perhaps, but without any data to back up that assertion, I choose to disbelieve it.

I also noted the disingenuous wording...which made me curious. How many homicides are commited with firearms by people with no prior criminal record?

"Contrary to myth and misrepresentation (see Watermark), most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly 'blow-away' their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.

Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.

Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The 'crime of passion' homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule."



http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"Almost half of all crimes are committed by people with no prior criminal record", eh?

Perhaps, but without any data to back up that assertion, I choose to disbelieve it.

I also noted the disingenuous wording...which made me curious. How many homicides are commited with firearms by people with no prior criminal record?

"Contrary to myth and misrepresentation (see Watermark), most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly 'blow-away' their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.

Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.

Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The 'crime of passion' homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule."



http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

According to the statistics presented in your article only 54% had a previous felony conviction. That's half.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.29]

"Previous felony conviction" does not equate to "criminal record".

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"Previous felony conviction" does not equate to "criminal record".

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.29]

I guess that means I'm right.

 

[Diuretic]

If gun control really works, then why is the District of Columbia, which has the strictest gun laws in the nation, the murder capitol of the United States?

I think you're begging the question.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I guess that means I'm right.

I guess that means your a fucking idiot.

FACT: A majority of murder perpetrators had no prior criminal record, despite your skewing statistics to invent a mythology in which all murders are committed by faceless criminal organizations that slowly creep out into the community and murder law abiding innocent civilians for no reason.

Suck on it bitch. You're going on my blocklist you desperate motherfucking dispicably evil sycophant.

 

[Diuretic]

Do you really think that criminals go to gun stores to purchase guns?

They won't if there are laws in place prohibiting them from doing so, but in absence of such a law, yes, criminals can go to a store to purchase a gun. One reason is that it's cheaper than buying one on the underground market.

 

[Diuretic]

The one think I have noticed is that no one ever argues about taking guns away from criminals. It is always aimed at taking guns from law abiding citizens thereby leaving law abiding citizens at the mercy of the criminal element. Who thinks this is a good idea?

Gun control isn't about disarming criminals. Criminals who use firearms as part of their offending are charged appropriately and, if convicted, are sentenced according to their actions. It's usually the case that firearms seized as evidence are then forfeited. Gun controls laws on the other hand apply to all citizens and are intended to regulate the sale, use and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

 

[Diuretic]

How do you take away the guns from Law Abiding citizens? You first have a registration so you know who owns the guns. This makes it very easy to come by your home and collect the guns that are not endangering anyone. Criminals do not normally register their guns which makes removing guns from the criminal element impossible.

Why would anyone come by and demand a lawfully registered gun owned by a law-abiding, licensed citizen?

Removing guns from criminals isn't impossible. Police and law enforcement agencies (eg ATF in the US) do it all the time.

 

[Diuretic]

The original post in no way tried to indicate a linear cause/effect relationship. Instead, what the statement does is REFUTE the cause/effect relationship (legal access to guns is related to gun violence levels) used in the justification of tight gun control laws.

In reality it is the gun control advocates who are using a linear causation conclusion when defending gun control. The basis for gun control laws is that legal access to guns is directly attributable to gun violence levels. The expectation then is that limiting access will therefore reduce gun violence. But no gun control laws have managed to show such a result.

But when defenders of gun rights mention that gun control laws do not work, somehow it is they who are depending on linear causation claims? Sorry, that is plain false.

My defence of gun control laws has nothing to do with crime. It has everything to do with reducing harm to owners/users and non-owners/users alike. And of course I have to argue a link between gun control laws and reduction of harm, otherwise there'd be no point in having gun control laws would there?