Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

ZHawke wrote: HEARTLESS, I'm going to ask you to explain how laws "punish" law abiding citizens? More specifically, how do gun laws punish you, a law abiding gun owner?

Firearms are no longer just personal property in Colorado. With background checks now costing $7.00 per transaction and a requirement to have this performed when selling that personal property, and with the magazine capacity limitation now in effect in Colorado, many guns can no longer be transferred with their original magazines making said sale much more difficult. These are just in relation to the ridiculous law taking effect July 1, 2013. There are many more.

HEARTLESS wrote: The term domestic abuse defines the type of abuse. Gun violence conveniently includes suicide, accidental or neglectful, justified self defense as well as murder. So since a gun is just an instrument, unless some is beaten with a gun, there is no gun violence (this is obviously extreme, but so are proposals that negatively effect law abiding gun owners for something they didn't do.)
In several previous posts, many have stated the solution to the problem is both punishment for the perpetrator and career ending intervention. Just because it is a different thread, doesn't change our suggestions.

No, the term "domestic" abuse does not define the type of abuse because it also conveniently leaves out the modus operandi, i.e.: how the act of abuse was committed. Was it by gun? If so, then it's domestic gun violence.

The suicide, accidental or neglectful, justified self defense, as well as murder arguments in this regard are just as irrelevant when one comes right down to it. If a gun is used to commit suicide, for example, that's an act of violence in which a gun was used, albeit on one's self. Same with all the rest. They are, in fact, acts of gun violence when a gun is used.

HEARTLESS wrote: Firearms are no longer just personal property in Colorado. With background checks now costing $7.00 per transaction and a requirement to have this performed when selling that personal property, and with the magazine capacity limitation now in effect in Colorado, many guns can no longer be transferred with their original magazines making said sale much more difficult. These are just in relation to the ridiculous law taking effect July 1, 2013. There are many more.

That still does not tell anyone how these "laws" actually "punish" you, a law abiding gun owner. It may inconvenience you, the law abiding gun owner, but it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, "punish" you, the law abiding gun owner.

So prove where any recently enacted gun law has prevented deaths.

How circular do you want to get?

ZHawke wrote: How circular do you want to get?

When it comes to more laws affecting law abiding gun owners, that doesn't address the criminals act, punishment and death when a fair trial has occurred, imagine a never ending circular spiral. All the laws regarding these issues already exist, but aren't enforced or carried through to conclusion. When there is no punishment for the crimes, there is no reason to follow the laws.

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote: How circular do you want to get?

When it comes to more laws affecting law abiding gun owners, that doesn't address the criminals act, punishment and death when a fair trial has occurred, imagine a never ending circular spiral. All the laws regarding these issues already exist, but aren't enforced or carried through to conclusion. When there is no punishment for the crimes, there is no reason to follow the laws.

That's pretty darn circular.

So, basically, no laws at all.....since they aren't enforced anyway......since no one has any reason to follow them?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote: How circular do you want to get?

When it comes to more laws affecting law abiding gun owners, that doesn't address the criminals act, punishment and death when a fair trial has occurred, imagine a never ending circular spiral. All the laws regarding these issues already exist, but aren't enforced or carried through to conclusion. When there is no punishment for the crimes, there is no reason to follow the laws.

That's pretty darn circular.

So, basically, no laws at all.....since they aren't enforced anyway......since no one has any reason to follow them?

You're beginning to think like a mass murderer, and clearly didn't read what I wrote.

HEARTLESS wrote: You're beginning to think like a mass murderer

How low do you want to take this?

HEARTLESS wrote: clearly didn't read what I wrote.

Quite the contrary, HEARTLESS. I read it very carefully. It's your circular reasoning I'm trying to point out to you...the logical fallacies in your reasoning.

Laws are meant to be punitive after the fact, as I've tried to point out previously. They do NOT punish law abiding gun owners BEFORE the fact. They merely place restrictions upon the law abiding gun owners who may find those restrictions "inconvenient", but who are NOT being punished by those restrictions. That is if/or until those law abiding gun owners do not obey the law at which point they are no longer law abiding gun owners.

Please understand, I get what you're trying to say and the point you are trying to make. It simply does not resonate with me because it sounds like one more excuse to maintain the status quo on the issue of gun violence rather than trying to do something to address it. We've heard it before (enforce existing gun laws), and I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing it again after the next shooting, mass shooting, accidental shooting, suicide shooting, ad nauseum.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: You're beginning to think like a mass murderer

How low do you want to take this?

HEARTLESS wrote: clearly didn't read what I wrote.

Quite the contrary, HEARTLESS. I read it very carefully. It's your circular reasoning I'm trying to point out to you...the logical fallacies in your reasoning.

Laws are meant to be punitive after the fact, as I've tried to point out previously. They do NOT punish law abiding gun owners BEFORE the fact. They merely place restrictions upon the law abiding gun owners who may find those restrictions "inconvenient", but who are NOT being punished by those restrictions. That is if/or until those law abiding gun owners do not obey the law at which point they are no longer law abiding gun owners.

Please understand, I get what you're trying to say and the point you are trying to make. It simply does not resonate with me because it sounds like one more excuse to maintain the status quo on the issue of gun violence rather than trying to do something to address it. We've heard it before (enforce existing gun laws), and I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing it again after the next shooting, mass shooting, accidental shooting, suicide shooting, ad nauseum.

Actually holding our DA's responsible for enforcing the laws by trying cases, having a Gov. that trusts the people and court system to carry out the death penalty, having a Mayor and his appointed Chief that no longer coddle criminals while endangering our police officers is hardly a status quo proposal, but I anxiously await your proposals.