Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA  A Woman's Point of View (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Non sequiter (0+ / 0-)

    because there are very few guns in Europe in private hands, there is therefore very little violent crime in the United States.

    As for criminals giving up guns, well I seem to remeber that both in Europe and the US there have been gun amnesties where many unregistered weapons have been handed in.

    So your argument is that if we cannot get 100% compliance on day one, we abandon the project - join the GOP.

    If you took 10% of the weapons off the streets, and that reduced the incident rate by 5%, this would 800 less firearm incidents per year - not worth it? Fuck the 800 in Er or the morgue, you just got hold on to your desert eagle to keep you warm during the night.

    As for inanimate objects - no cars - no dui deaths. Only difference is you don't need a glock to get to work in the morning. And for reference - there ain't a big difference between RTA deaths and gun related eaths in the US

    My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

    by senilebiker on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:59:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't mind that you're non-sequitor... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, labwitchy, KVoimakas, Tom Seaview

      ...and will respond anyway.

      You are, of course, putting words into my mouth, so to speak.  I never said that we must have 100% compliance to make it worthwhile -- it would just be nice if there were any significant compliance to gun laws by criminals.  There is not.

      If you took 10% of the weapons off the streets, and that reduced the incident rate by 5%, this would 800 less firearm incidents per year - not worth it? Fuck the 800 in Er or the morgue, you just got hold on to your desert eagle to keep you warm during the night.

      If you were to take those guns from criminals, you might be on to something.  However, all you have advocated here -- or, in any other thread I've seen you discuss it -- is to remove those guns from the law-abiding, who do not contribute anything to the incident rate you've pulled out of thin air.  So, even if your numbers were correct (I'll use them for the sake of discussion, even though you've clearly just made 'em up), your little scheme there is silly, as you're not actually saying who you're taking the guns from.  

      Again, law-abiding gun owners do not contribute to the number of gun crimes -- criminals do.  Disarm criminals?  We're all for that.  Disarm the law-abiding so that we can not defend ourselves from criminals?  No thank you.  If you prefer to be at their mercy, don't buy a gun.  Simple answer.

      Additionally, once you start reading our minds to insist that we don't care about those injured by criminals with asinine statements such as we've "just got hold on to your desert eagle to keep you warm during the night," you have shown yourself to be without any meaningful argument.  No one here has ever advocated allowing violent criminals access to guns -- they have that access anyway, illegally, because they are... wait for it... criminals.

      •  Well you are guilty of what you accuse me of. (0+ / 0-)

        When you have an amnesty, you don't need to hand in legal weapons, cos they are legal. So, a large percentage of the weapons handed in are illegal, - think parents who find a gun in their kids room, or soemone who got one because they were afriad of something at one time, but the threat has gone away.

        In the UK, there is no law against owning knives, just carrying them. Every so often  they have a knife amnesty, and people drop of lots of very vicious knives - Kbars etc.

        As to law abiding gun owners - this is also disingenuous. By definition they are law abiding, but if they do somthing against the law, they are no longer law abiding. How many deaths are illegally caused by legally held weapons, either by accident or intent. But for your arguement, these people are automatically switched into a different category.

        How about the kids who play with unsecured guns? and shoot themselves or their friends? Which category do they fall into? Who here is the "violent criminal"?

        The trap you are falling into is the idea that if you restrict access to firearms, than it is only impacting those who are the "good guys". My numerical example, theoretical, accepted that a 10% reduction in guns would result in only a 5% drop in incidents, thereby implicitly accepting a lower reduction in arms held by "the bad guys", but as I stated above, some of the good guys will become bad guys, and some of the "bad" guns will be handed in as well.

        The reality is that you don't want to have a reasoned discussion, you just want to cling to your gun until I pry etc etc etc

        My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

        by senilebiker on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:12:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Another thought. (0+ / 0-)

          If you make certain weapons illegal - assualt rifles whatever, then those holding them legally would thereafter be holding them illegally. Are these hitherto good guys now bad guys?

          My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

          by senilebiker on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:14:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe in punishing people... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shadan7, rockhound, KVoimakas, Tom Seaview

          ...for what they might do -- clearly, you're okay with that, so we have a fundamental disagreement there.  

          The only way to take your argument is to say because someone might some day commit a crime with a firearm, then they should not have access to firearms.  You might as well say that someone might some day commit a crime with a computer (hacking, identity theft, etc), then no one should be able to own a computer.  That is every bit as ludicrous as your argument -- and follows the precise construction as yours (even though you'll not admit that, I'll wager).

          Another disagreement we have is that I'm fine with distinguishing between the law-abiding and the not law-abiding.  It's kinda like distinguishing between true and not-true -- there is a difference.  Just because you choose not to accept it has no bearing on that fact.

          The reality is that all of your empty claims have been debunked numerous times, and you choose not to accept that fact.  

          Your kneejerk reactions have no particular bearing on the discussion, but as has been discussed elsewhere, by pointing out -- again -- the numerous fallacies of your arguments, your ad-hominem attacks, and your outright falsehoods, someone else might learn something.

        •  Curiosity compels me... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, theatre goon

          How is a K-Bar any more "vicious" than many kitchen knives (some of which are larger)?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (42)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Environment (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Science (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Spam (21)
  • Education (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • International (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site