The stricter the gun laws, the safer the children

AAAintheBeltway said:
Trying to reason with a progressive is like trying to explain to a small child that no, they can't have a pony, ie it's a waste of time. Their brains are incapable of dealing with rational argument when they want something so badly. This is why they are able to hold totally contradictory opinions on various issues and not see any problem. Deaths from guns are terrible and must be addressed but only by burdening responsible law-abiding gun owners. Actually addressing the problem, ie inner city gangs and illegal alien drug cartels, is racist and unthinkable.

Any person of normal intelligence can see the reason for this disconnect is totally political. Lawful gun owners tend to be republican and gangs and illegals are core elements of the dem base, so that dictates the policy. It is amazing how easily the prog base is manipulated into positions that are totally against their professed interests, ie concern for low income workers versus open borders which clearly hurts those same low income workers.
More...

Excellent post.
 
Tsing Tao said:
If you turned off the sale of cigarettes tomorrow, the amount of cigarettes in circulation would drop to a near zero amount in short order. Not so with firearms.
More...

Correct but don't even go there. You are conceding his premise that more guns equal more gun crime. We know that is not true. More criminals equal more gun crime. Lock them up, keep them out of our country and have a zero tolerance policy for crime and you get less gun crime. Dems of course want to do the exact opposite.
 
Tsing Tao said:
No, of course not. But then there aren't millions of illegal cigarettes already out there on the street, nor are they reusable, etc. So it's not even remotely a similar comparison.

If you turned off the sale of cigarettes tomorrow, the amount of cigarettes in circulation would drop to a near zero amount in short order. Not so with firearms.
More...

So no one is advocating for not selling firearms but you keep arguing against it. Do you understand the basis of the study?
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Correct but don't even go there. You are conceding his premise that more guns equal more gun crime. We know that is not true. More criminals equal more gun crime. Lock them up, keep them out of our country and have a zero tolerance policy for crime and you get less gun crime. Dems of course want to do the exact opposite.
More...

There’s a lot of morality to discuss in this thinking but the cost of what you’re proposing is what makes it absurd.
 
The basis of the study was to data mine and come up with some sort of random correlation that would justify burdening legal gun owners even more. Apparently the study "adjusted" for factors like race to avoid having Chiraq skew the desired outcome.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Trying to reason with a progressive is like trying to explain to a small child that no, they can't have a pony, ie it's a waste of time. Their brains are incapable of dealing with rational argument when they want something so badly. This is why they are able to hold totally contradictory opinions on various issues and not see any problem. Deaths from guns are terrible and must be addressed but only by burdening responsible law-abiding gun owners. Actually addressing the problem, ie inner city gangs and illegal alien drug cartels, is racist and unthinkable.

Any person of normal intelligence can see the reason for this disconnect is totally political. Lawful gun owners tend to be republican and gangs and illegals are core elements of the dem base, so that dictates the policy. It is amazing how easily the prog base is manipulated into positions that are totally against their professed interests, ie concern for low income workers versus open borders which clearly hurts those same low income workers.
More...

I’m not against addressing gang issues. We lose a lot of potential to gangs.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The basis of the study was to data mine and come up with some sort of random correlation that would justify burdening legal gun owners even more. Apparently the study "adjusted" for factors like race to avoid having Chiraq skew the desired outcome.
More...

You just made this up out of thin air.
 
UsualName said:
There’s a lot of morality to discuss in this thinking but the cost of what you’re proposing is what makes it absurd.
More...

It worked in NYC when Gulianni took over as mayor. Locking up violent thugs for long periods is a proven way to keep them off the street. We don't worry about costs when we are spending trillions in pointless sand wars but suddenly we can't afford to protect our children?
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
It worked in NYC when Gulianni took over as mayor. Locking up violent thugs for long periods is a proven way to keep them off the street. We don't worry about costs when we are spending trillions in pointless sand wars but suddenly we can't afford to protect our children?
More...

New York is an excellent case on how removing guns from the streets makes a city more safe and prosperous. New York and NYC are a great example of how strict gun laws and strong law enforcement can really clean up an entire city very quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top