Liberal ban on magazine size.

Quote from Ricter:

Who says anyone believes in perfection? Or "always", or "never"?

It's funny, decades ago liberals were considered wishy-washy because of their frequent use of qualifiers like "mostly", "rarely", etc.
More...

OK, fine. Bad choice of words. Do you truly believe that gun control laws will "reduce" the amount of guns that get into the hands of criminals. Same goes for drugs and prostitution. Come on Ricter, you know what I'm asking here. I expect better from you then to play semantics.
 
Get it straight. You just apologized then go right back into, "guns"
when its not about "guns" its about the extent of "types of killing machines".
 
Quote from Maverick74:

I would like an honest, sincere answer to this question for all you ET liberals. Do you really truly believe that passing gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Seriously, do you?

Let me ask another question. Do you believe making drugs illegal stops drug use?

Do you believe making prostitution illegal stops prostitution?

Can you give one example of a law that has stopped what it was intended to stop?
More...

Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Now let me ask you a couple questions. Do you think closing the gun show loop hole that allows the purchase of a gun on the spot is really an attack on the 2nd amendment? Why is it such a bad idea to require some type of thorough background check before a person can purchase a gun?
As to a law that actually has done some good, tougher drunk driving laws have reduced deaths and accidents on the road due to driving while impaired. Let's see, that's about it...wait, there's the deregulation and lack of oversight on financial institutions and corporate America in general. That's accomplished exactly what it was supposed to in allowing the wholesale destruction of blue collar labor, and the financial rape of the working class.:p
 
Quote from omegapoint:

Get it straight. You just apologized then go right back into, "guns"
when its not about "guns" its about the extent of "types of killing machines".
More...

I'm trying to keep the argument broad on purpose.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

I'm trying to keep the argument broad on purpose.
More...

Even liberals own guns. You know the debate by now. Its only been decades. I even own a gun but not a machine gun. Its always been about extent. Whats the point keeping it broad?
 
One of the first handgun laws in the states was the "Sullivan act" in NY city. Sully was a corrupt Tammany hall politician that was helping his hired thugs protect themselves during crime sprees in which they would relieve fellow NY`rs of their money.

That’s about all you really need to know about gun laws. They protect criminals and leave the honest folk out in the wind.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Now let me ask you a couple questions. Do you think closing the gun show loop hole that allows the purchase of a gun on the spot is really an attack on the 2nd amendment?

Yes it is. And no, I don't think closing the loop hole will stop anyone from getting a gun.

Why is it such a bad idea to require some type of thorough background check before a person can purchase a gun?

I actually support background checks although I believe they have no affect on preventing what they intend to prevent.

As to a law that actually has done some good, tougher drunk driving laws have reduced deaths and accidents on the road due to driving while impaired.

I think this is largely because of social pressure. The magnitude of drunk driving deaths is about 100,000 times larger then gun deaths.
More...
 
Quote from Maverick74:

OK, fine. Bad choice of words. Do you truly believe that gun control laws will "reduce" the amount of guns that get into the hands of criminals. Same goes for drugs and prostitution. Come on Ricter, you know what I'm asking here. I expect better from you then to play semantics.
More...

Just wanted to make sure the focus is on efficacy. If by criminals you are willing to include the deviant behaviors like we just saw in Tucson, and those crimes of passion we too often see in the home, then I believe this: making them harder to get, ie. relatively scarcer, must in the end raise the cost of obtaining them, in money, in time, to a point where some, not all, will be deterred. This is non-controversial, of course, since it's clear that if there were no guns at all there would be no gun crimes.

At any rate, every time there is a massacre like this there is a call to "do something" about this very difficult problem. That's human nature, and politicians have to acknowledge that. Do they personally believe their proposals will eliminate gun crime? I doubt they do.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Just wanted to make sure the focus is on efficacy. If by criminals you are willing to include the deviant behaviors like we just saw in Tucson, and those crimes of passion we too often see in the home, then I believe this: making them harder to get, ie. relatively scarcer, must in the end raise the cost of obtaining, in money, in time, to a point where some, not all, will be deterred. This is non-controversial, of course, since it's clear that if there were no guns at all there would be no gun crimes.

At any rate, every time there is a massacre like this there is a call to "do something" about this very difficult problem. That's human nature, and politicians have to acknowledge that. Do they personally believe their proposals will eliminate gun crime? I doubt they do.
More...

Don't you think the debate would be better served to talk about mental illness? Why is it that gangs and mafia and drug cartels don't seem deterred by the cost of getting illegal arms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top