So now we get to argue that Democrats don't kill people? Wacko meaning anyone that would kill anyone. You're a little sensitive today too I guess.
554 children under the age of 12 killed by gun violence
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
So now we get to argue that Democrats don't kill people? Wacko meaning anyone that would kill anyone. You're a little sensitive today too I guess.
Exactly, having a 'paranoid, and cynical portion of a population is a blessing. If it wasn't for those types, the government would have us marching in unison down the streets with red bands around our arms.
-Most of this is already restricted
-Protection is always going to be a cause, unless you are wanting them to be specific about unpredictability
-What happens to the people who aren't actually crazy? Forcing people, causes them to force back
-What good does that really do? So the 'crazy' person has to wait 28 days, if in fact they choose to use guns to commit their misdeeds.
-Define better screening.
The court systems were highly successful in changing the tobacco industry. They were also highly successful in getting gay marriage. They could do the same with the gun lobby.
When the GOP blocks any attempts for gun control or even the study of the matter you had better believe I will blame them.
Nothing changed in the tobacco industry. They were simply robbed of some money.
It's a salient point. Without humans using them, cigarettes are unable to kill anyone. But if someone from the tobacco lobby testified in front of Congress with this excuse, he would get laughed out of the room.
You literally claimed that guns don't kill people. This is a prime example of minimizing the dangers of guns. Hell, it even goes so far as to pretend that guns have nothing to do with it in the first place.
On this point, I'm actually in agreement with you, trad. People always knew that smoking was bad for you, at least for most of the 20th century. Cigarette manufacturers were promoting healthier forms of cigarettes decades before the tobacco industry was ever hit with its lawsuit. If that isn't an admission of guilt, I don't know what is.
Certainly this is an option, and one that I've already pointed out. But smuggled guns will cost more than simply stealing one from many of the "good" guys, so we've accomplished our same goal of pricing criminals out of the market.
You cannot buy guns online without going through a dealer and a background check unless the seller is a private individual and you are going to meet them to do a personal transaction, both of which are rare.
Who has said anything about banning guns? I simply want to regulate guns like we do cars. Make people pass proficiency tests first, obtain a license, pay fees. Then do background checks, close the private sale loophole. And make gun manufacturers liable for the product they create to top it all off.
Last edited:
So, your solution for curbing gun sales is to tighten the financial vices even more on the poor and middle class and to create more criminals, violence, and death.
That sounds like a pretty solid plan you have there, Huey.
Create less criminals. What about driving up the price of guns by reducing supply do you not understand?
Or do you not know how marketplaces work?
You understand that creating a black market creates more criminals, right? The people who were doing their job within the law are now going to be considered criminals. That in itself is adding more criminals to society.
So, once again, your idea is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to limit guns in the United States, which will ultimately hurt the poor and middle class financially. Then you're going to create more criminals, death, and violence by creating a black market.
Once again, sound like a well thought out plan.
I'm not sure why you can't get this. It doesn't matter if it's a legal market or a black one. If you reduce supply, both marketplaces will see a rise in prices.
As for hurting poor people class, how? If less criminals have guns, it largely removes the need for poor people to buy guns to fight them. It would make their neighborhoods safer and free up the money they would otherwise have to spend on home defense.
I don't understand how you could think that less guns would equal less crimes. Do you think all crimes involve a gun or something?
As for my claims of financial issues to the poor and middle class, my reasoning is in the post you quoted, but I'll put it here once again, but with more detail. We don't have the money for this endeavor that you're talking about. In order to accomplish even a small percentage of this undertaking it's going to take hundreds of billions of dollars. That money has to be created. Created fiat money is called inflation and leads to an increase in prices. These prices will include housing, food, utilities, clothes, basically anything you want to buy. When you don't have a lot of money to spend, an increase in prices hurts you a lot more than it would someone who has millions in the bank.
Certainly not all crimes involve a gun. But if you remove guns, you will have decreased the crimes committed by guns, which should reduce the number of overall crimes, or at least make them less dangerous if you want to argue that they will commit the guns with something else. Either way, you will be safer.
And why wouldn't we have the money to fund background checks, licenses, and other regulations? Did you miss the part about the fees? You charge people who do want guns heavy fees to cover the costs of implementation. So the rest of your post is moot.
How am I safer? A knife or a baseball bat can kill me just as dead as a gun can.
A decrease in overall gun crimes doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in overall crime.
The fees are not going to cover the administrative costs, they never do. That's one reason why we're running such a huge deficit and also the reason we seem to bail out the USPS once a decade.
This is one problem. If Hulk Hogan tries to beat up a midget, he's going to destroy him. Now, if the midget has a gun, he at least has a fighting chance.
You've officially lost the argument by claiming that a baseball bat is just as dangerous as a gun. If that were the case, then I suspect the US military would have all kinds of contracts with Louisville Slugger.
That isn't his point. His point is that guns aren't the only things that can kill. The majority of murders aren't from mass killings.
Jesus Christ. Now you're claiming that the DMV is why we have such a large debt?
I've already covered this. Even if they replace a gun with a bat, you will have improved the situation because a bat is less dangerous.
So, you're saying baseball bats aren't lethal weapons? Hell, a sharpened pencil can be a lethal weapon.
Not to a single person it isn't. I'd rather be shot than beaten to death by a baseball bat.
Not saying that, and you know it. Simply stating that it takes the wrong person on the trigger side of a gun to kill someone. If the gun is sitting there, and nobody around it, nobody dies.
Just wondering how you can say that back then, everyone knew cigarettes were bad for them.
So no credit for wanting tougher background checks. No credit for limiting or banning assault rifles. No credit for being against average civilians carrying concealed weapons.....
Gotcha. We agree on many things, but I make that one statement, and I'm on the other side. That's fine.
Are you a lawyer? You are deliberately trying to muddy the waters here. First of all...I have read your posts for quite some time. You Sir, are no libertarian. You may agree with some positions. But, that does not make you an anarcho-capitalist. You embrace Keynesianism. Have you ever read Murray Rothbard, rightfully considered the father of libertarianism? The central tenet of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle or NAP.
Defending oneself is a natural right given to us from our creator. It cannot be taken away by government. When tried, it usually ends in disaster or servitude for the masses. Probably why there wasn't an amendment for homes or cars. Allowing governments to have a monopoly on the use of force has often lead to slavery of the compliant people.
You mention a "compelling argument can be made for infringing on that liberty". Maybe in your 'If I were dictator' world. But, I see nothing in the 2nd amendment that says that. Don't perpetuate such falsehoods. It reads "Cannot be infringed".
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
OABCIG to Super Bowl TD: DeJean Integral to Eagles' Championship
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-