Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 40 to 51 of 51
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Western KY
    Posts
    1,221
    More police is not going to prevent an unarmed citizen from being attacked unless there are enough police to be everywhere all the time. Even if every citizen had a gun there would still be attacks on citizens. The only difference is that no one would be defenseless. The school shootings would still happen since those who do them are out of their minds and plan to die anyway. Armed citizens everywhere would absolutely reduce the number of innocents killed or wounded, due to immediate response, but would not, and never will, prevent evil from being evil. No tax, no weapon, no cop will ever remove the risk of attack. However only a weapon in your hand will give you the ability to immediately defend yourself from it.

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    I understand, those who do not have guns, need protection which has to be paid for, hence increased tax. I agree.
    Also if being a gun owner does reduce your individual chance of being a crime victim, then it must also follow that your insurance premiums will also be considerably less (is the insurance true, do gun owners pay much less insurance premiums. because insurance premiums are based solely upon risk!).
    Should a non gun owner pay for a gun related crime (directly or indirectly), because he does not have a gun, that a crim. may use in the future.

    a simple example (and not a personal attack), you choose to own a gun, I do not but pay your 5% tax, we both happy and in agreement.
    Your in Texas, you go shopping, leave your gun under your car seat. The gun gets stolen, used in a crime, the crime has a cost, policing, the actual cost of the crime. Why should i pay when i have paid my 5%. if they broke into my car they would not find a gun and the crime may not of been committed. You should pay for the consequence of owning the gun, as I have paid for not owning.

    and what is unfair about that!

    And if the criminal, who breaks the law by the way, breaks into a locked house with secured guns and still pilfers them, then uses them in a crime, who pays? Laying on the seat in the open I would agree with you on. However once that door is opened the "it's not my fault crowd" will bulldoze through it. The gun was still stolen. Period. Remember you said they broke into your car so a crime was committed. If they took a golf club out of your car are you responsible?
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy knocker View Post
    More police is not going to prevent an unarmed citizen from being attacked unless there are enough police to be everywhere all the time. Even if every citizen had a gun there would still be attacks on citizens. The only difference is that no one would be defenseless. The school shootings would still happen since those who do them are out of their minds and plan to die anyway. Armed citizens everywhere would absolutely reduce the number of innocents killed or wounded, due to immediate response, but would not, and never will, prevent evil from being evil. No tax, no weapon, no cop will ever remove the risk of attack. However only a weapon in your hand will give you the ability to immediately defend yourself from it.
    I agree with you.

    A woman who was at Sandy Hook said that it happened so fast there was no way an armed citizen could have responded in time even if one were there.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ControlsInMT View Post
    And if the criminal, who breaks the law by the way, breaks into a locked house with secured guns and still pilfers them, then uses them in a crime, who pays? Laying on the seat in the open I would agree with you on. However once that door is opened the "it's not my fault crowd" will bulldoze through it. The gun was still stolen. Period. Remember you said they broke into your car so a crime was committed. If they took a golf club out of your car are you responsible?
    If a non gun owner has to pay an additional tax (original op), for his protection and being a non gun owner he can not increase the supply of guns into the criminal arena, then all guns that which do enter must come from gun owners who have not paid the extra tax, so all future gun crimes are indirectly responsible to all gun owners. so all cost of gun crime must be borne by all gun owners.
    Note this argument is related to taxing non gun owners.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy knocker View Post
    More police is not going to prevent an unarmed citizen from being attacked unless there are enough police to be everywhere all the time. Even if every citizen had a gun there would still be attacks on citizens. The only difference is that no one would be defenseless. The school shootings would still happen since those who do them are out of their minds and plan to die anyway. Armed citizens everywhere would absolutely reduce the number of innocents killed or wounded, due to immediate response, but would not, and never will, prevent evil from being evil. No tax, no weapon, no cop will ever remove the risk of attack. However only a weapon in your hand will give you the ability to immediately defend yourself from it.
    Lets agree on one thing, you will never stop all evil or a nut case.

    Your other points, not necessarily true.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    If a non gun owner has to pay an additional tax (original op), for his protection and being a non gun owner he can not increase the supply of guns into the criminal arena, then all guns that which do enter must come from gun owners who have not paid the extra tax, so all future gun crimes are indirectly responsible to all gun owners. so all cost of gun crime must be borne by all gun owners.
    Note this argument is related to taxing non gun owners.
    The error in your arguement is that we do not live in a vaccuum. In our instance, guns come across the border from Mexico. Actually you failed to address several issues. If a person does have his guns secured and they still are stolen, then what?
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ControlsInMT View Post
    The error in your arguement is that we do not live in a vaccuum. In our instance, guns come across the border from Mexico. Actually you failed to address several issues. If a person does have his guns secured and they still are stolen, then what?
    In the case of this thread only, just owning a gun, hence not paying an extra tax all gun owners are liable.
    To the best of my understanding, that most guns used for crime in the USA were at some time were legal in the USA. so looking at minority issue to counter act the majority argument in this case does not fly.
    Please note that the points i am making are related to Tools original statement, an not to be taken on there own.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Western KY
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    Lets agree on one thing, you will never stop all evil or a nut case.

    Your other points, not necessarily true.
    Every point absolutely true because we agree that you will never stop all evil or a nut case, nut case being a weak mind corrupted by evil.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    In the case of this thread only, just owning a gun, hence not paying an extra tax all gun owners are liable.
    To the best of my understanding, that most guns used for crime in the USA were at some time were legal in the USA. so looking at minority issue to counter act the majority argument in this case does not fly.
    Please note that the points i am making are related to Tools original statement, an not to be taken on there own.
    You are making some great assumptions there on legal gun ownership. I do not believe all of these criminals are running around identifying their guns. Are some, probably most, at some point from a legal background, I would agree. However, laws, almost always, were broken to put the gun in the hands of the criminal. So where is the accountablility there?

    Now if we are talking the extra tax for the protection, I believe the rest of us are already paying the taxes for law enforcement. The new 5% is for "above and beyond the standard". That being said, the police are still being paid to prevent the theft of the gun in the beginning. Since they failed at their job, should they also not be held accountable? Remember now, the 5% was just for personal protection from harm basically, what a CCW holder would use his gun for.

    So if a gun owner prevents the rape of a non-gun owner, are they eligible to claim that 5% tax from the person?

    The final question would be how is punishment handed out to the criminals? Do the guns owners have their own court system? Should the none gun owners pay for this as well since it is also for their well being and protection to get the bad guys off the streets?

    Again, you did miss the whole point of the OP.
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,176
    If it is a gun related crime, and gun owners are paying for the cost of the gun crime (direct and indirect), then sure why not have your own court and penal system.

    If a gun owner actually stops a crime, then why not give him reward or payment out of the 5% extra tax. But on the same argument, if the extra police also stop a crime for a gun owner, then the gun owner injects back into the fund.

    The original OP is flawed, because there is simply no conclusive proof that gun ownership effects crime rate, But this should not stop ideas from flowing.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    10,015
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    If it is a gun related crime, and gun owners are paying for the cost of the gun crime (direct and indirect), then sure why not have your own court and penal system.

    If a gun owner actually stops a crime, then why not give him reward or payment out of the 5% extra tax. But on the same argument, if the extra police also stop a crime for a gun owner, then the gun owner injects back into the fund.

    The original OP is flawed, because there is simply no conclusive proof that gun ownership effects crime rate, But this should not stop ideas from flowing.
    The original OP was indeed flawed. I was in fact trying to 'turn the table' as the expression goes. It was more conceptual than a driven agenda.

    Liberals are thinking gun ownership is a liability that need punishment. I am saying gun ownership is not a liability but a community service instead. Hence the 5% tax suggestion for those not willing or unable to contribute their share of responsibility. That was off the top of my head. But I do like the reward concept for gun owners, and reduced insurance cost for gun owners in some types of insurance.

    As Tommy pointed out, EVIL will continue to attack sometimes in any case. It is not really my intention to punish law-abiding non-gun-owners. But there is no more fairness or logic in punishing law-abiding gun-owners. That is just politically motivated agenda, anti-US constitutional rights, and perhaps sinister.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    10,015
    Quote Originally Posted by AStudent View Post
    I agree with you.

    A woman who was at Sandy Hook said that it happened so fast there was no way an armed citizen could have responded in time even if one were there.
    She is an idiot. It takes maybe three seconds or so to draw and fire a concealed weapon. Under the right circumstances, there may have been no deaths at all if shooter was confronted with an armed CCW person. Depends on many circumstances unknowable. That is not a factual statement. As a matter of practicality, if intended as such, yes the bonker shooter was probably going to go blasting regardless and not much would stop that from commencing. It could have been stopped short though.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event