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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The same way racism is dead among the young generation?

[Anonymous]

Why do people start new threads with half-truths just because people don't 100% agree with their opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You saying it's false doesn't make it false.

Straw purchases happen all the time, and the purchasers are caught all the time. Try to find someone who went to prison for it.

And then try to find a felon in possession of a firearm who spent the 10 years in prison that simple possess (easy to prove) should get them. Just find one. I'll wait.

[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.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/16/us/russian-bots-florida-shooting-intl/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The same way racism is dead among the young generation?

For the vast majority it is dead among the younger generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You know why the FL shooter's school didn't forward his violent and threatening behavior to the local police when they expelled him? Because liberals are soft on crime. They wanted to curb the "school to prison pipeline":
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/11/05/243250817/fla-school-district-trying-to-curb-school-to-prison-pipeline

Turns out, coddling violent people doesn't make them non-violent. It enables them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You saying it's false doesn't make it false.

Straw purchases happen all the time, and the purchasers are caught all the time. Try to find someone who went to prison for it.

And then try to find a felon in possession of a firearm who spent the 10 years in prison that simple possess (easy to prove) should get them. Just find one. I'll wait.

And that is Liberals' fault? NP here and Kirsten Gillebrand, a Liberal and a Democrat, wrote a bill a few years ago making all firearm trafficking and straw purchases of firearms a federal offense and it never made it to the floor for debate - the Republicans killed it.

[Anonymous]

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[/quote

Are you saying they don't kill numerous people fast and instantaneously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You saying it's false doesn't make it false.

Straw purchases happen all the time, and the purchasers are caught all the time. Try to find someone who went to prison for it.

And then try to find a felon in possession of a firearm who spent the 10 years in prison that simple possess (easy to prove) should get them. Just find one. I'll wait.

And that is Liberals' fault? NP here and Kirsten Gillebrand, a Liberal and a Democrat, wrote a bill a few years ago making all firearm trafficking and straw purchases of firearms a federal offense and it never made it to the floor for debate - the Republicans killed it.

Straw purchasing is already a federal offense. Maybe it's not spelled out as "straw purchasing", but if you lie on the form, that's perjury among other things. Same with "firearm trafficking", since any interstate transfer needs to go through a dealer by law.

If Kirsten Gillebrand was pushing a law that made what's already illegal, illegaler then I'm guessing it was to sucker the non-initiated into thinking she was "doing something" and maybe get some donations. I'd also suspect that it was written in such a way as to capture innocent people, like how the "universal background" check laws make it a crime to let your buddy standing next at the shooting range shoot your gun because that's now a "transfer" that needs to go through an FFL with the background check and fees that go along with it.

[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[/quote

Are you saying they don't kill numerous people fast and instantaneously?

Shoulder things that go up?

[Anonymous]

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.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

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.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

Exactly.

In other news: people who know nothing about the subject at hand probably should't be the ones making policy.

[Anonymous]

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.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

[Anonymous]

No reasonable and mentally sound person is against stricter gun control.

No reasonable and mentally sound person is against practical measures to make sure kids at school are kept safe.

People who argue against either side are insane.

[Anonymous]

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.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

For wildlife poaching? Yes, yes they should. Do you not consider poaching to be a big deal? Are you not at all concerned about species becoming extinct? What deterrents would you suggest for those who are depleting our natural resources?