Once again....All that "Gun Control" can possibly do is remove guns from honest citizens!

Most (not all) of the "Pro Gun Control" people on this forum just do not get it. (See I used the word PRO and not ANTI to describe them)

All gun control can possibly do is allow the criminals to have the guns and the citizens to have no way to defend themselves from armed criminals!

Once again......

1. There are 90 million handguns in the USA and 3-4 million new handguns sold per year.

2. There is no possibly of ever making gun purchases illegal. No GOP or DEM member of Congress wants to ban gun sales. And the SCOTUS has ruled people have the right to own guns. And the country would riot if gun sales would be made illegal. This is not even a remote possibility.

3. At least 50,000 - 100,000 handguns are stolen per year. These end up in the hands of criminals. There is no way to stop these guns from being stolen.

4. Only about 10,000 guns are used to murder people per year. That is only 10% of the guns stolen yearly.

5. Criminals will always have guns available from the pool of stolen guns.

So what the pro-gun-control groups want to do it prevent honest, law abiding citizens from owning gun legally when there is NO WAY to prevent the criminals from obtaining them. Do you people see the problem with your plan?

If you disagree with this please, once again, provide a detailed plan on how to do the following:

1. Stop guns from being stolen and sold illegally to criminals.
2. Prevent 3-4 million new guns from being purchased yearly (this adds to the pool of possible stolen guns)
3. And please make sure answers to #1 and #2 can pass the congressional vote and a SCOTUS challenge for approval.
4. Explain why you do not want honest citizens armed when you KNOW criminals will be armed.

I will continue to post this topic until I get a real possible solution to stopping criminals from possessing firearms and using them against honest citizens, who you apparently do not want armed.

h

Thanks for sharing, it takes a lot to admit that publicly.

Badguys easily bribe government officials for military weapons.

Shut down the manufacture, import and sale of new units.

We'll somehow just need to get by with what already exists. Until it gradually gets melted down.

I guess we just need to abandon any public policy against possession of kiddie porn.

No? That's different?

Bull.

Just as there are laws against child porn.

So what is your point?

No, mere possession is a crime. Complete.

Something deemed dangerous in and of itself. Impermissible. Tolerance Zero.

But is it more dangerous than guns and ammo?

Guns and ammo are lethal.

Over 80,000,000 Americans own firearms. (Many own several.)

There are about 30,000 (+/-) sui/homicides per year.
Are the other 79,970,000 guns broken?


OR MAYBE, as the epidemiologists tell us, the mere presence of firearms among us "infects/affects" only some of us.
Let's see 80,000,000 guns divided by 30,000 deaths equals 2666 guns to kill someone.

WE DEFINITELY NEED TO SUE THE MANUFACTURER. If guns are "designed to kill" and it takes 2666 of them... well you get the idea. ;)


Wait! I got a great idea. :think: How about a limit on the total number of personal firearms anyone can own of say 1000 guns?
That way at least 3 people would have to collaborate to murder another and 2 of them would have to haul over 800 guns apiece to the location of the third persons gun-safe (which BTW would have to be quite sizable). I'd be fine with that.

You just solved the whole gun problem and made this forum moot.

:rofl:

Anyone with a genius level IQ and the ability to run a calculator could have done it. You see ever since high school chemistry, that fellow Boltzman has really intrigued me.

You see he started with the ideal gas equation PV = nRT and solved for nR = PV/T. (Just Algebra)
Next he looked at the "n". He realized that n (the number of moles of gas) is just "N" the number of molecules of gas divided by the number of molecules in a mole. That would be Avagadro's number (Na = 6.02 x 10^23)

HERE IS WHERE THE GENIUS HAPPENED!

He rewrote the ideal gas law as PV = NkT where "N" is the number of molecules. Thus the "k" is now known as Boltzman's constant! (k = R/Na).
You have to be a genius to take one constant and divide by another and then name the result after yourself. ;)

I am taking steps as I write this to copywrite the number 2666. As discoverer, I will name this constant jointly for myself and Skinner.


{Note: This screenplay and the characters are entirely fictional. Any resemblance to any geniuses living or dead is purely coincidental.}

Yes, there are over 80,000,000 firearm owners but with over 200,000,000 firearms the 2,666 gun constant is rather inaccurate.

Using my suggested model of an infectious condition originating with the firearm the proper number would be 6,666 = 200,000,000 / 30,000.

However, I'm not certain that the infection rate is directly dependent on the actual number of firearms as those firearms must be acting directly and principally on those that own them. This would tend restrict the degree of freedom of the individual pathogen.

Opinions?

No dies, no gun. But the dies are not the thing which causes the harm.

The criminal who shoots an innocent victim with a camera/ the criminal who shoots an innocent victim with a gun.
Both the camera , and the firearm, have uses that are beneficial and detrimental, much like any other tools.

The gun (likewise the ammo) is the kiddie porn.

Nobody needs to do anything with the kiddie porn but possess it. They don't even need to view it.

A thing dangerous in and of itself.

Gun: ownership , constitutionally protected.
Inert, neither dangerous, or beneficial, without
Manipulation by a human being. Has many positive uses in society.

Kiddie porn: ownership forbidden by law. Has already caused harm, mere presence suggests a child was previously
victimized. Has no positive use in society whatsoever.

Care to rethink that comparison?

Please cite some examples of guns harming anyone, in and of themselves, without being manipulated by a person.

And their claimed positive uses do not justify that harm.

A gun without a person can do nothing.

Sometimes guns "in the hands of persons" prevent harm. This is not a "claim" -- it is a fact.

With guns, can cause harm, they can also do good things, just as they can with any tool. As i have said before, guns in society are inert.
It is debatable whether people with guns (that includes LE types and civilians)do more harm then good, I tend to think that the positives far outweigh the negatives.

I'm very happy to know that you, presently don't get to make the decision, whether i carry a gun or not.

You admit that the police and military need to possess them. Unless you can come up with some reason why certain segments of society would need to possess kiddie porn, then your analogy fails. You state it here yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=422940&mesg_id=422976

No, the gun is not dangerous in and of itself, clearly.

Then the only debate is who is "allowed" to possess it. I think any reponsible citizen; you think only the uniformed representatives of the state. But the kiddie porn analogy? Defunct -- its failure has been demonstrated here time and time again. You need some new memes.

...the cameras that will someday produce kiddie porn and the guns that will someday be used in murders and/or suicides?

How are the gun free paradises doing?

Just nucking futs.

"Shut down the manufacture, import and sale of new units."

Under what claimed authority would you do such a thing?

you want to put how many people out of a job?

...there was once this fellow named Saloth Sar...

Use your google. ;)

Yah, doesn't work for other rights, either.

You know, the fifth and fourteenth amendments?

Here, let me refresh your memory..

we need the NRA to help craft those laws.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has to be the most asinine conversation I've had all week.

You don't remove rights because you consider someone 'an idiot'.

Moronic.

untrained are a danger to themselves and others. By your logic, we should allow all citizens to own any kind of firearm they like. I don't think people need rocket propelled grenade launchers, do you?

What criteria would you set to remove someone's rights, eh?

What constitutes 'an idiot', hrmm?

who cannot pass police training cannot take a gun outside the home.

Or are you backing away from your statement?

Let me remind you..

idiots should carry guns?

that would cause you to keep him from having guns?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/sovereign_citizen_opens_fire_on_store_because_it_r.php?ref=fpb

Then no.

We don't remove people's rights before they do something wrong. 'Minority Report' was a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.

We gotta deal with the foul things -- particularly in public -- sooner or later. Might as well start now.

1. So what?
2.
a not true. It might be your interpretation of political likelihood, but it simply isn't in the same class as a fact.
b not true. They might not be able to afford saying it out loud right now. Most Congresspeople are more likely to be victims than users of firearms, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for at least a couple to weigh this into their opinion. And they are in a class that will have armed protection even if no one else does.
c the SCOTUS has also ruled that corporations are people. Fer chrissakes, the SCOTUS used to support slavery.
d Not true. A relatively small number of active gun owners/activists might riot, in which case they would get treated like any other armed rioters in America.

3. Sure there is. If they aren't there to be stolen, then they aren't stolen. If the owners are held responsible for what is done with them while stolen, then they are extremely unlikely to be stolen, except FROM criminals.

4. For better or worse, Americans commonly ban something when 0.001% of it is a problem (skateboards, for example). Why should guns be the exception?

5. This 'pool of stolen guns' can be reduced to a couple hundred, or a couple dozen. We may not like the process, but a lot of us don't like MOST of the political changes of the last three decades. It would just be another sucky thing the government did poorly.

Plan - how to stop them
1 a - there are none to steal, except from authorities, who understand that...
b - crimes done with a stolen gun are on the head of the gun owner, and
c - no exceptions are made for gun nuts who happen to be military or police
2 they're not legal. you can't purchase them. period. we can't get them all, but we can reduce the quantity to that of alligator rape.

3 this issue aside, we obviously need a better quality of intellect in both Congress and the SCOTUS

4 a - because there are no 'honest citizens' and 'criminals' as distinct classes
b - if we took gun control seriously, I wouldn't expect criminals to be armed, so that one's irrelevant
c - I would expect an armed criminal to be responded to by a swat team with the assumption that an armed criminal will kill to escape arrest

I think by far the most important part of this argument is 4a of the plan. I'm a lot more afraid of some self-righteous doofus with a gun than I am a criminal. One advantage of criminalizing guns is that whenever, wherever they show up, their mere existence is enough to trigger a police investigation, so you aren't so often surprised by criminals with guns in the first place.

I'm not saying this is exactly what I would want to do. I'm saying that it's a perfectly reasonable long-term political goal, that other countries have demonstrated its workability, and that it does nothing to help political debate to attempt to exclude a major interest group as somehow outside legitimate dialogue.

Or - here's a simpler way to get rid of them - just require that all guns and owners carry liability insurance like cars, and then require that this insurance fund 100% of the legal problems associated with guns. We wouldn't need to change any other law. You can still own all the guns that you can AFFORD THE INSURANCE ON.

Again, too simplistic to be workable as is, it could, though, be the center of a perfectly reasonable way to vastly reduce the number of guns in America without radically changing our laws otherwise.

I am not sure if you are being serious or just joking around. That is how off base your suggestions are.

Your argument that a "couple" of congress members might support banning gun sales helps your cause how? A couple??? You only need a few hundred more to get a gun sales ban passed. If you honestly think a gun sales ban would ever have any chance of passing in this country you are living in a dream world.

You also want to pass a whole set of criminal laws to arrest and put in prison any home owner who has their guns stolen if the criminal uses their guns in a crime? Really? So I am at home and someone kicks in my front door at and gun point says they will kill my family or I can hand them my guns from my gun safe. So you would want me to either let them kill my family or have me responsible for the guns they stole from me at gunpoint? So 5 years later someone uses one of my stolen guns to kill someone you want me held responsible for the murder? What other stolen items are the owners of those items responsible for forever???

You said "One advantage of criminalizing guns is that whenever, wherever they show up, their mere existence is enough to trigger a police investigation, so you aren't so often surprised by criminals with guns in the first place.". You do realize that the police already investigate murders with guns? And how would making guns illegal help that?

But your rant comes down to this:

Plan - how to stop them
1 a - there are none to steal, except from authorities, who understand that...
b - crimes done with a stolen gun are on the head of the gun owner, and
c - no exceptions are made for gun nuts who happen to be military or police
2 they're not legal. you can't purchase them. period. we can't get them all, but we can reduce the quantity to that of alligator rape.

Which is crazy even for the most extreme anti-gun people I know. You are suggesting the government goes door to door and remove guns from peoples homes. That sounds like it will go over well. Even my anti-CCW friends would refuse to hand over their guns.

Drug are illegal to manufacture and sell but both happens every day. You have a solution for that also. Please post it as I need the laugh.

Reread your post and think about it.

How about this. Since most of our violent crime is related to the drug trade and both murderer and victim tend to have criminal records how about insurance or special tax on your bong? It is more relevant. Why should be have to pay for social problems we do not contribute to? The criminals sure are not going to pay any tax.

that itself a problem worth pushing back against? Why not make everything (including skateboards!) an 'exception' to that, rather than supporting the habit when it suits us? I will argue in a general sense that banning anything, or limiting any right, needs to be as limited as possible and based on a solid justification - '0.001% are a problem' just doesn't rise to that.

Secondly, "I'm a lot more afraid of some self-righteous doofus with a gun than I am a criminal" - by comparison, I'm far more afraid of flying 1000 miles than I am of driving that same distance. That doesn't mean my balance of fears is rational or based on data; in fact, I have it exactly backward (as do you). Doesn't change my behavior, or mean that my (your) fears are 'wrong' - just means that we're basing our opinions in part on an illogical premise...

Criminals that own guns still have to buy bullets for them from time to time right? Unless they suddenly get an education and learn how to make their own, it's going to be costly.

Impose a $300 tax on each bullet/round/projectile/whatever manufactured or imported in the US.

Then a box of 20 rounds will cost at least $6,000 and a box of 50 will be at least $15,000.

Those taxes will be put in a pool and given to the families of anyone shot by a firearm in a violent crime.


Buy the gun for $500 and the ammo for 10x to 30x that.


Right to bear arms... not necessarily the bullets that go in them.

Also, we pro-RKBA people have enough votes to have our way.

How "progressive" of you.

But I see where you are going with the tax thing. I'm sure the rupuks would love to follow that up with a $500.00 tax to cast a vote.

It only highlights your own.

The same comedian also came up with a way to get away with murder.

All you have to do is shoot someone and then put a demo tape in dead guy's pocket. ;) (The government hates rap!)

That's the "Chris Rock solution," right? It was funnier when he did it. It's all in the delivery.

News flash: it doesn't pass the Constitutional smell test, nor would it work particularly well. Do you know how easy it is to manufacture ammunition by reloading the brass? At the very best you would create a huge cottage industry in black-market reloads: just another business opportunity for enterprising criminals. I can see it now: ammo bootleggers shooting it out and scrambling to catch the brass before it hits the ground.

Keep on trying but I don't think we will ever get thru.

yup