There is a difference. The criminals who have guns are ALREADY breaking the law by owning those guns, there is no law that you can pass that is going to change that. You will not pass a law and get the criminals to give up their guns, your law will only affect the law abiding. It will disarm civilians who have to deal with an armed criminal population.
The best predictor of who will commit acts of violence is a history of violence.
The vast majority of gun murders are committed by felons, domestic abusers, juveniles and people with restraining orders. All categories of people who are already not allowed to have guns.
Perhaps you are saying that we should ban handguns (assuming we can get around the fact that you have a constitutional right to a handgun) because it will prevent that small percentage of murders caused by people who are eligible to own handguns. After all there are only about 250 cases of justifiable civilian homicide every year. Does it matter at all how many crimes were prevented by civilians with guns?
The relatively anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center thinks the number is closer to about 50,000/year http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf Of course not every one of those defensive gun uses prevented a murder but when you are talking about a slim percentage of gun murders being caused by previously law abiding gun owners, you are preventing a lot of defensive gun uses because a few guys flipped their lid and killed someone with a gun, something that would have happened (at least in some cases) using some other weapon.
Criminals don’t carry guns because they think their victims will be armed, they’re not looking for a fair fight, they actively avoid places that might have guns. They carry guns because there are a lot of situations where having a gun is helpful in committing crime regardless of whether or not the other guy has a gun. They are a force multiplier.
Which is quite a long-winded way of saying “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” and very carefully ignores my point about criminals obtaining guns via those who purchase them legally.
I had to get more long winded because you didn’t seem to understand the bumper sticker version.
You mean the post you made AFTER the post I was replying to?
I think I’ve addressed that point at least half a dozen times, but…
Lets agree that straw purchases and sales are a large source of guns to the criminal population. Something worth stopping (of course people keep telling the gun nuts that the gun laws on the books aren’t worth enforcing). You still don’t need to ban all guns to prevent straw purchases and reduce the flow of guns into criminal hands.
Licensing and registration will severely constrict the flow of guns into criminal hands while leaving the citizenry armed to protect themselves against crime and the collapse of the rule of law (see LA riots). So you those 50,000 incidences of defensive gun use every year won’t turn into another 50,000 successful crimes every year.
Licensing and registration also has the benefit of being constitutional (so you wouldn’t need to repeal the second amendment.
Licensing and registration has always been a pretext to deny licenses to all but the politically connected, and is being proposed exclusively by people whose goal is the confiscation of all privately held guns. No one is going to fall for it.
True. But that isn’t the goal of big government liberals. They couldn’t care less about gun violence. They are out to control us and everything we do. Liberty and freedom are their enemies. They hate the very notion of them.
If you browse this forum you will quickly recognize that.
Yea right. Government forced health care, an arbitrary, confiscatory tax policy with an unregulated criminal organization ( the IRS), a forced government retirement system which is bankrupt (social security), a massive and corrupt welfare system, and the continual relentless attempt to disarm citizens.
Tell me, which of those are the policies of conservatives.
No, I’m saying that you are distorting the facts so much that you might as well be outright lying, not “new age nonsense”. Your “obvious facts” are neither obvious nor facts; they are right wing talking points. Lies, in other words.
[ul]
[li]“Government forced health care”: A warmed over Republican plan that’s a handout to the insurance companies. Not “liberal” in any way.[/li][li]An arbitrary, confiscatory tax policy with an unregulated criminal organization (the IRS)": The IRS is neither unregulated nor a criminal organization, and American taxes are overly low, not “confiscatory”.[/li][li]“Forced government retirement system which is bankrupt (social security)”: It’s guaranteed, not “forced”, and it isn’t bankrupt. And it’s far better than just letting people starve to death on the streets.[/li][li]“A massive and corrupt welfare system”: An undersized and not particularly corrupt welfare system.[/li][li]“And the continual relentless attempt to disarm citizens”: Unfortunately there’s barely any such attempt at all. Failed, half-hearted attempts to slightly retrain the insane amount of armaments Americans have is neither disarmament nor continual.[/li][/ul]
[LIST]
[li]“Government forced health care”: A warmed over Republican plan that’s a handout to the insurance companies. Not “liberal” in any way.[/li][/QUOTE]
Wrong. But regardless, to say it isn’t a liberal notion is laughable.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:114, topic:660627”]
[li]An arbitrary, confiscatory tax policy with an unregulated criminal organization (the IRS)": The IRS is neither unregulated nor a criminal organization, and American taxes are overly low, not “confiscatory”.[/li][/QUOTE]
Really? What other government agency has the ability to seize your property or conduct audits of your income without a court order? And regulated by whom? The very government which granted them these unconstitutional powers.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:114, topic:660627”]
[li]“Forced government retirement system which is bankrupt (social security)”: It’s guaranteed, not “forced”, and it isn’t bankrupt. And it’s far better than just letting people starve to death on the streets.[/li][/QUOTE]
Now you’re just making yourself look silly. SS has been bankrupt for years. Even the most liberal congressman will admit that.
It’s not “wrong”, it is indeed just a retread of an Republican plan from the Clinton years; notoriously so. Nor is it liberal, whether you like it or not. Liberals don’t like it, and they don’t like Obama or the Democrats because neither of them are liberal either.
It’s Constitutional, and of course it’s regulated by the government. Who would you expect to do it instead, Martians? And of course it conducts audits and takes money that is owed; it’s tax agency.
Let me guess, you’re one of those silly “taxation is theft” types.
No, it isn’t. That’s just pure right wing fantasy.
I’ll try to help you out here. The social security fund has been bankrupt for decades.
That’s undeniable. Ask any of your most liberal friends. Ask any politician. Ask anyone with the slightest knowledge of the U.S. debt liability. Ask the U.S. treasury dept.
Why do you think congress has been funding it for years and years? Because it cannot fund itself like it was supposed to do through a payroll tax. And the government has been borrowing from SS for decades as well.
You’re not really going to try and deny this are you?
Where did you get your info? And why is the government borrowing from a fund too bankrupt to have funds to lend?
Since we’re already in the Pit let me say this:
There is much said about SS that is very VERY stupid. But these comments by fudrucker may be the very stupidest I’ve ever seen!
fudrucker, I am sincerely curious where you got your “facts.” Don’t defend their truth; just help us understand what crappy YouTubes or Blgs you use for inspiration.
I’m really stunned by this lack of common knowledge. Congress has been funding SS for years. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. A very well known fact. It’s in every fiscal budget. It’s the equivalent of saying that the U.S. budget deficit does not exist. I can’t believe you don’t really know this.