"we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one has said we can't have laws because criminals break them.

People have said, that more laws alone won't stop criminals so in addition to the laws we need to take practical steps to stop the criminals.

Why that second piece is so offensive to some or so hard for some people to understand is beyond me.

oh spare me you freakin liar. NOBODY who advocates for gun control laws would have ANY issues taking additional steps to stop violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

almost everything you wrote is compatible with stronger gun laws, and also represent very well-trodden liberal policy goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

No, Dear - it isn't. I am a gun owner, btw, and a veteran. I am vehemently opposed to any rifle or handgun that falls into the assault weapons category and all extended clips. If you cannot hit a target in seven shots, you have no business owning a firearm.

Extended clips, eh? As there is no such thing, I guess it's Mission Accomplished on that front. And I'm sure the police will be thrilled to find out that you've decided that if they can't defend themselves with 7 shots, they have no business owning a firearm. What's that? They deal with criminals all the time? Turns out, so do the rest of us. And it also turns out that we deal with the same exact criminals. Except that the rest of us deal with them before the police even show up. So yeah, cops should be limited to 7 rounds, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who oppose any gun regulation also always use: "More people are killed by cars" as if that were remotely relevant. It is like saying since more people die from heart disease than cancer - we should do nothing to cure and prevent cancer!

No, it's like saying that since more people die from heart disease than cancer, we shouldn't outlaw any cancer treatment that doesn't rely on outlawing yellow t-shirts.

You are still talking about the banning of assault weapons, PP. There is so much more to gun safety legislation that that.

But if banning yellow shirts saved lives - I am for it.

Serious question: How about banning murder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

almost everything you wrote is compatible with stronger gun laws, and also represent very well-trodden liberal policy goals.

So, just to get this straight: your solution to kids being terrified that there's going to be another mass shooting in their school, is for the feds to release the names of medications that shooters have been on?

Cool, that sounds very reassuring and effective. I'll be the generation of kids demanding change right now will be 100% satisfied with this idea.

[Anonymous]

I’m so tired of all this. The students crying about gun laws simply don’t matter. They’re going on “the list” when it comes to college and future employment.

Kids come on cable news with Newtown survivors saying it’s not fair.

Guess what? It doesn’t matter that it’s unfair. People just do not vote you out if you protect guns. They DO vote you out if you push for gun control.

Get smart. Accept how it is, and invest in weapons stocks so that you can at least make some money when the inevitable happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

No, Dear - it isn't. I am a gun owner, btw, and a veteran. I am vehemently opposed to any rifle or handgun that falls into the assault weapons category and all extended clips. If you cannot hit a target in seven shots, you have no business owning a firearm.

Extended clips, eh? As there is no such thing, I guess it's Mission Accomplished on that front. And I'm sure the police will be thrilled to find out that you've decided that if they can't defend themselves with 7 shots, they have no business owning a firearm. What's that? They deal with criminals all the time? Turns out, so do the rest of us. And it also turns out that we deal with the same exact criminals. Except that the rest of us deal with them before the police even show up. So yeah, cops should be limited to 7 rounds, right?

An extended clip is any magazine that hold more than six bullets. You were clearly never in the military.

And most cops only carry a firearm with seven or nine rounds. Other wise is is too heavy.

Know what you are talking about, PP, and move from where you live if you think you are going to be assaulted by more than seven armed thugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m so tired of all this. The students crying about gun laws simply don’t matter. They’re going on “the list” when it comes to college and future employment.

Kids come on cable news with Newtown survivors saying it’s not fair.

Guess what? It doesn’t matter that it’s unfair. People just do not vote you out if you protect guns. They DO vote you out if you push for gun control.

Get smart. Accept how it is, and invest in weapons stocks so that you can at least make some money when the inevitable happens.

Ahhh, PP - your world is changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m so tired of all this. The students crying about gun laws simply don’t matter. They’re going on “the list” when it comes to college and future employment.

Kids come on cable news with Newtown survivors saying it’s not fair.

Guess what? It doesn’t matter that it’s unfair. People just do not vote you out if you protect guns. They DO vote you out if you push for gun control.

Get smart. Accept how it is, and invest in weapons stocks so that you can at least make some money when the inevitable happens.

They're coming of age in the next couple of years. The people who think like you do are in for a real surprise, I reckon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

almost everything you wrote is compatible with stronger gun laws, and also represent very well-trodden liberal policy goals.

False. Liberal politicians are very weak on crime. In the cities with the worst rates of gun homicide, gun crimes are just as illegal, but they're also the first crimes to disappear in a plea deal. Straw purchases, which is where most criminals get their guns virtually never result in prison time. If liberals were as interested in keeping violent criminals behind bars as they are about taking away peoples' natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, we wouldn't have all these gun homicides piling up in anti-gun liberal cities like Chicago, DC, Baltimore, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who oppose any gun regulation also always use: "More people are killed by cars" as if that were remotely relevant. It is like saying since more people die from heart disease than cancer - we should do nothing to cure and prevent cancer!

No, it's like saying that since more people die from heart disease than cancer, we shouldn't outlaw any cancer treatment that doesn't rely on outlawing yellow t-shirts.

You are still talking about the banning of assault weapons, PP. There is so much more to gun safety legislation that that.

But if banning yellow shirts saved lives - I am for it.

Serious question: How about banning murder?

You are truly an idiot, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

almost everything you wrote is compatible with stronger gun laws, and also represent very well-trodden liberal policy goals.

So, just to get this straight: your solution to kids being terrified that there's going to be another mass shooting in their school, is for the feds to release the names of medications that shooters have been on?

Cool, that sounds very reassuring and effective. I'll be the generation of kids demanding change right now will be 100% satisfied with this idea.

That's a nonsensical interpretation of what I wrote. But not as nearly as nonsensical as believing that a sign out front saying "No Guns Allowed" protects them now. Or, if you put that sign on the whole country that it would be any more effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

almost everything you wrote is compatible with stronger gun laws, and also represent very well-trodden liberal policy goals.

False. Liberal politicians are very weak on crime. In the cities with the worst rates of gun homicide, gun crimes are just as illegal, but they're also the first crimes to disappear in a plea deal. Straw purchases, which is where most criminals get their guns virtually never result in prison time. If liberals were as interested in keeping violent criminals behind bars as they are about taking away peoples' natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, we wouldn't have all these gun homicides piling up in anti-gun liberal cities like Chicago, DC, Baltimore, etc.

False. Proven false and sustained as false. Liberals are NOT soft on crime - especially gun violence. Look it up.

You are probably older, PP - this was true in the 1960's - but hasn't been true for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

No, Dear - it isn't. I am a gun owner, btw, and a veteran. I am vehemently opposed to any rifle or handgun that falls into the assault weapons category and all extended clips. If you cannot hit a target in seven shots, you have no business owning a firearm.

Extended clips, eh? As there is no such thing, I guess it's Mission Accomplished on that front. And I'm sure the police will be thrilled to find out that you've decided that if they can't defend themselves with 7 shots, they have no business owning a firearm. What's that? They deal with criminals all the time? Turns out, so do the rest of us. And it also turns out that we deal with the same exact criminals. Except that the rest of us deal with them before the police even show up. So yeah, cops should be limited to 7 rounds, right?

An extended clip is any magazine that hold more than six bullets. You were clearly never in the military.

And most cops only carry a firearm with seven or nine rounds. Other wise is is too heavy.

Know what you are talking about, PP, and move from where you live if you think you are going to be assaulted by more than seven armed thugs.

A clip is not a magazine, like a car is not a fish. Words mean things.

And what guns are cops carrying that are limited to 7 or 9 rounds? C'mon, now. Stop making things up.

I'm sure the cops will also be pleased to hear about this magical ammo of yours that always hit its target, and disable that target on the first shot. Please enlighten us - what is this magical ammo called?

Also, want to guess how I know you've never really fired a gun in your life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has said we can't have laws because criminals break them.

People have said, that more laws alone won't stop criminals so in addition to the laws we need to take practical steps to stop the criminals.

Why that second piece is so offensive to some or so hard for some people to understand is beyond me.

oh spare me you freakin liar. NOBODY who advocates for gun control laws would have ANY issues taking additional steps to stop violence.

Really because I've seen multiple people be against just that. Stop throwing tantrums and calling names because someone doesn't agree with you and because you don't know how to argue a point.