Anonymous wrote:Well this thread has gotten dumb. Thanks everyone

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.

No thanks.

The point was that safety measures decrease deaths.

You think there should be ZERO restrictions on any swimming anywhere? No fences around pools? Lifeguards? Swim test for the deep end, etc.?

Are you going to get a shovel and some dirt and fill in every pond, creek, river, stream and lake, too?

Aren’t natural bodies of water the equivalent of a “gun show loophole” when it comes to common sense swimming control laws?

You missed a few questions:
You don't think home owners should be required to have a fence around their pool?

You don't think public pools should be required to have lifeguards?

You don't think there should be any regulations around swimming anywhere?

Have you started filling in your local pond yet?

Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.

No thanks.

The point was that safety measures decrease deaths.

You think there should be ZERO restrictions on any swimming anywhere? No fences around pools? Lifeguards? Swim test for the deep end, etc.?

Are you going to get a shovel and some dirt and fill in every pond, creek, river, stream and lake, too?

Aren’t natural bodies of water the equivalent of a “gun show loophole” when it comes to common sense swimming control laws?

You missed a few questions:
You don't think home owners should be required to have a fence around their pool?

You don't think public pools should be required to have lifeguards?

You don't think there should be any regulations around swimming anywhere?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

+1

Almost every gun on the street today was legally purchased at some point.

Almost every car on the road used in a drunk driving crash or aggressive driving incident was legally purchased at some point.

And we can track down the owner by VIN number.

Maybe we should regulate guns as much as we regulate cars/driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

If someone steals a gun from you, you are a victim of crime - not a criminal.

By that logic displayed, you would also favor rape victims be jailed because “they just aren’t responsible enough to prevent sex crimes from happening”.

Let’s not victim blame, m’k?

DP. Seems like you're having trouble following the PP. Hint: they used quote signs around "stolen".

Except legislation and laws don’t recognize “sarcasm”.

Oh fun. We are wording laws now. What is a better way to word a law to prevent abuse of fake stolen guns?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

If someone steals a gun from you, you are a victim of crime - not a criminal.

By that logic displayed, you would also favor rape victims be jailed because “they just aren’t responsible enough to prevent sex crimes from happening”.

Let’s not victim blame, m’k?

DP. Seems like you're having trouble following the PP. Hint: they used quote signs around "stolen".

Except legislation and laws don’t recognize “sarcasm”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

+1

Almost every gun on the street today was legally purchased at some point.

Almost every car on the road used in a drunk driving crash or aggressive driving incident was legally purchased at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

If someone steals a gun from you, you are a victim of crime - not a criminal.

By that logic displayed, you would also favor rape victims be jailed because “they just aren’t responsible enough to prevent sex crimes from happening”.

Let’s not victim blame, m’k?

DP. Seems like you're having trouble following the PP. Hint: they used quote signs around "stolen".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.

No thanks.

The point was that safety measures decrease deaths.

You think there should be ZERO restrictions on any swimming anywhere? No fences around pools? Lifeguards? Swim test for the deep end, etc.?

Are you going to get a shovel and some dirt and fill in every pond, creek, river, stream and lake, too?

Aren’t natural bodies of water the equivalent of a “gun show loophole” when it comes to common sense swimming control laws?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

+1

Almost every gun on the street today was legally purchased at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

I don't think our gun laws are sufficient. At a bare minimum we need mandatory background checks and mandatory reporting of serial number data to go into a persistent searchable database EVERY TIME a gun changes hands. That would close a lot of loopholes. That way, every time a criminal is found with a gun, we will know exactly where it came from and what "law abiding" gun owner had it last. And if he didn't report it lost or stolen at the time it happened then he should be charged as an accessory with 20-25 years sentence. Also, if you have more than one gun "lost" or "stolen" you immediately lose the right to own guns because you are not a responsible person. Along with completely outlawing manufacture or possession of untraceable gun parts.

If someone steals a gun from you, you are a victim of crime - not a criminal.

By that logic displayed, you would also favor rape victims be jailed because “they just aren’t responsible enough to prevent sex crimes from happening”.

Let’s not victim blame, m’k?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to swim, unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.

No thanks.

The point was that safety measures decrease deaths.

You think there should be ZERO restrictions on any swimming anywhere? No fences around pools? Lifeguards? Swim test for the deep end, etc.?