Why do those here who support gun control think the criminal is a nice guy down on their luck?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Home invaders are just hungry looking for something to eat. Burglars only want to steal a stereo to sell and buy some food. Of course none would ever do anything more than take something of value. None of them would ever assault, rape or kill anyone. This is the constant meme here from the gun grabbers. Can someone help me with their logic?

[beyurslf]

1. Most everyone I know who has robbed a home (and yes, I know several who have done this)

have done it because they did not want to work and wanted a quick way to make cash. The cash normally went to buy drugs, alcohol, or other rubbish. If you are hungry, you don't steal a tv to hawk. You steal a box of something to eat from the grocery store.

[slackmaster]

5. Every home burglar and robber I have met has a serious drug problem

Usually heroin or amphetamines.

The commercial burglar I helped send to prison when I was on jury duty once seemed to be just a psychopath. He didn't appear to be into drugs. I think he just did it for fun - The challenge of opening someone else's safe.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Well, the question wasn't exactly addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

I dpn't think criminals are nice guys down on their luck. I think they're very damaged people, down on their luck since before birth, having swum in drug-laden amniotic fluids for their first nine months of prenatal existence. Most of them come from thoroughly dysfunctional families, with backgrounds in alcohol & drug abuse. They put their heads up their asses to avoid noticing the emotional, physical and sexual abuse that was occurring around them and to them, and they kept their heads up their asses when the went to school, thereby not learning enough to hold a job. Sort of a self-inflicted attention deficit disorder. When their heads outgrew their asses, they used drugs for the same purpose of self-deadening. They can look you in the eye and either lie to you or blow you away, whichever suits their purpose or impulse of the moment. And I will happily admit that everything I just said is a tremendous overgeneralization. It is gleaned from my having conducted psychological evaluations of a few criminals. About 2,100 of them as near as I can figure.

[Schema Thing]

3. Why is that any less logical than thinking that

everyone who steals deserves to die?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Who thinks that?

[Paladin]

79. You Do. (n/t)

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

8. Please point to where somebody has actually said this, or even hinted at it. (nt)

[rd_kent]

60. Uh, yeah. While I can point you to several postings that support the OP, can you point to a single

post that supports YOUR claim? I'll wait.....

[slackmaster]

4. It's the naive side of a liberal mind-set

Most people outgrow it.

[sharesunited]

6. There is an anti-gun position short of outright confiscation, Dave.

And that is to cease further sales of new guns and ammo.

Turn off the spigot and let market principles applicable to other collectibles take care of the present oversupply.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. No need homicides are down 10% according to the FBI.

[sharesunited]

11. Numbers are one thing. Wrongful and unjust administration of death is another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Where did that occur?

[PavePusher]

20. Adults are trying to talk here.

Please go away.

[Callisto32]

48. So is the wrongful taking of another's property.

Read: "gun bans"

[jeepnstein]

54. What?

The death of a criminal during the commission of a crime is regrettable, entirely avoidable on the criminal's part, but you assign it some kind of legal status akin to an execution protocol. That's just not the way the world really works. In the real world some times good people are forced to defend themselves against people who choose to conduct themselves in a manner that is far beyond the norms of society. It's not justice, it's survival.

[PavePusher]

66. If someone is trying to kill me...

what methods of stopping her/him are permissable under your moral system?

Straight answer, please.

[eqfan592]

10. Which of course won't work due to the black market...

...the demand, the ability for people to make firearms on their own (for the technically capable), the continued production over seas, etc., etc., etc.

So your plan is to create an even larger black market, thus funneling more money into the organizations that are behind much of the violent crime in the nation, while ignoring the major problems (such as poverty and education) that are actually real factors behind violent crime. Yep, great sounding plan, shares.

[sharesunited]

12. Somebody wanting to solve his problems goes to the gun store and gets what he needs.

No reason to enable that.

[eqfan592]

Of course if the problem the person is trying to solve...

...is that of personal protection, there is nothing wrong with enabling that. Hence the (ultimately fatal) flaw in your plan.

[taurus145]

44. You're on to something!

I remember now. Prohibition. That worked out well, didn't it?

[rrneck]

14. That is

time release confiscation. And a fine example of political and intellectual dishonesty.

[sharesunited]

16. It is a viable means of reducing a public menace in the least objectionable way.

Yes, it will make guns and ammo collectibles.

Yes, it will promote their scarcity.

Yes, it will increase their value.

These are all good and wholesome objectives.

[rrneck]

22. The result is

a gigantic black market and millions of people left defensless against agression.

What solution do you have for anyone who is assaulted by someone weilding a club, knife or fists? C'mon, give it up. Put up or shut up.

[PavePusher]

23. Making the poor and the weak...

or just the plain outnumbered or unlucky subject to the whims of the criminals and the State (I know, redundancy...).

"These are all good and wholesome objectives."

You really need to have a physician look at that cranio-rectal inversion syndrome you're suffering from.

[Merchant Marine]

39. You will drive up the cost of firearms

Making the smuggling of foreign arms a much more profitable venture. You won't shut down the armories in russia and china that sell guns to anyone with cash, nor will you shut down the cottage armorers in the Pashtun. You won't disaapear the massive cold-war stocks in south and central america either. In the end guns will become exactly like drugs- a massively smuggled, valuable commodity putting millions in the pockets of criminal gangs.

And with this new market you've created comes the territory and pipeline disputes as gangs quarrel. And because they are gun-runners, they will have no shortage of guns to settle their disputes with. Your plan will turn American cities into warzones, because the gangs will be importing heavy shit. Outside of the US and Europe full-autos are more common than semi-autos, and no self-respecting gun runner is going to remove the auto-sear before he sneaks his illegal wares across the border. We'll see an increase in full auto rifles and machine-pistols like the Czech Skorpion, which will make gang wars even more deadly for bystanders. Just like after the "saturday night special" manufacturers were driven out of business by the government, the criminals will upgrade and up-gun because the cheap stuff has dried up. Now instead of a shitty Lorcin .380 that was just as likely to blow up in his hand as fire, the common criminal carries a Smith and Wesson or Beretta, and this has made them deadlier.

Your plan will be an utter failure because certain enterprising individuals do not care about the law.

[pipoman]

45. Yes it is nearly universally seen as a Constitutional violation..

so your plan would require repeal of the 2nd amendment at the very least..good luck with that...there isn't even any support for that right here in GD, let alone with the public at large. Not even those notoriously anti-2nd Amendment idiots, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, are able to push a poll to get anything even close to your oft repeated silliness.



“Law-abiding Americans should have the freedom to choose how to protect themselves, based on their personal situation. No local, state or federal government should dictate this decision.”

92% of NRA members and 83% of non_nra members agree

(BTW this question on bloomy's poll was also the most important to poll responders)

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf

You spend far too much time fantasizing about the impossible, ineffective idea you have hatched for getting rid of guns and not any time at all developing an actual workable idea to reduce violent crime..in short, you fail.

[gorfle]

73. "time release confiscation"

That is time release confiscation.

Exactly. That is a very good term for what she proposes.

I won't tolerate confiscation of any kind.

[PavePusher]

21. If your proposal ever went into effect...

I would immediately buy a lathe and mill and start cranking out .45 caliber 1911 handguns as fast as I could, and sell them to any citizen who wanted one.

[sharesunited]

34. Ridiculous. You would be shut down as surely as if you were distributing child porn.

[eqfan592]

37. lol, yep, because child porn NEVER gets made, right?

Sorry Shares, but your wrong. Pure and simple. Your idea has as much merit and validity as the prohibitions against alcohol and drugs, and would be equally as effective as those were/have been.

[PavePusher]

40. And they ALWAYS get caught.... whatevah'... n/t

[PavePusher]

43. Catch me if you can...

Glad to see you are on the side of the jack-booted thugs. Very Progressive of you.

[Callisto32]

49. You're funny.

I'm'a go laugh, now.

[proteus_lives]

41. It will never happen.

Because people aren't crazy.

[aikoaiko]

46. I love when you post that because it's NEVER going to happen here & you'll always be disappointed.

Epic sisyphean fail.

[SteveM]

55. "market principles" aren't the same for "collectibles." Ask any goblin(nt)

[gorfle]

72. And deny a tradition to generations to come?

And that is to cease further sales of new guns and ammo.

Turn off the spigot and let market principles applicable to other collectibles take care of the present oversupply.

I see no reason to cripple the ability of future generations to resist tyranny, nor any reason to deprive future generations to enjoy shooting as my family has for over a hundred years.

The only reason you keep floating your confiscation over time idea is because you know you can't have one outright. We won't tolerate for one over time, either.

[spin]

78. Hell, I can make ammo ...

If I suspected that your idea was coming down the pike, I would simply stock up on components such as powder, primers and bullets. In fact I can make the bullets if I need to. Let me assure you that it's not rocket science.

I reloaded my ammo for about thirty years and still have the necessary equipment. I would commonly reload about 5 or 6 thousand rounds a year. The ammo I made was as accurate as factory ammo if not more accurate. It was also extremely reliable.

With 300 million firearms in the country right now, I don't see that turning off the spigot would have much effect, except of course to make my firearms a lot more valuable.

Plus any attempt to pass such a law would undoubtedly be pushed by liberal Democrats. One election cycle would pass and Democrats in office would be an endangered species. The resulting Republican majority would simply overturn the law.

Shit, we can't even get a good healthcare system in this country and we rule Congress and own the Presidency. There is no possible way that your idea would have a chance of making into law anyway.

Dream on.

[spin]

85. Your idea will fail because you ignore several factors ...

Properly cared for firearms and ammo last nearly forever.


Factory engraved SAA by Cuno Helfricht, shipped 1893 to E.J.Post & Co. Albuquerque NM

There are by some estimates as many as 300 million firearms in this country and billions of rounds of ammo. Most of these firearms have little or no collector value and while they would increase in value if new sales were stopped, firearms would be far from rare.

Plus it's not that difficult to reload ammo.

Your plan might work if you give it 100 years.

[rrneck]

13. All of the

punks, crooks, murderers, rapists, home invaders, nuts, crazies and other assorted malefactors are just fucked up people that got thrown under the bus before they had a chance to figure out what the fuck they were supposed to do with their lives. In the words of (I believe) S. J. Gould, "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half".

This country, hell this planet, has suffered under the misguided yoke of untrammeled free market capitalism since Saint Ron slept his way through office. Given the sorry state of income (mis)distribution and the withering away of any sense of civic duty, it's a wonder the entire country hasn't been depopulated by half already.

The unfair characterization of violent criminals as just "needy and desperate" has, like any effective snippet of propaganda, a grain of truth spun out of all proportion to reality. That killer was needy and desperate - years before some homeowner gave him two in the chest and one in the head. Most likely the system spent many years fucking him over and eventually somebody gets the pleasure of cleaning up the mess. It is, as they say in the movies, a lot cheaper than a trial.

The excessive soft pedaling of the uncontrollable viciousness of the animals we have created and allowed to run loose among us is, often as not, equal to sentiments like, "waste of oxygen..., good riddance..., job well done..., one less to worry about..., fuck him...". You don't hear much of the pro gun claptrap here because generally those expressing it get banned pretty quick, hence the perceived disparity.

So, to answer your question (finally) there is no logic. There isn't supposed to be. It is an unfocused sentiment regarding a moral imperative poorly expressed. But it is usually real and valid.

[patrice]

17. Bravo! Often the main difference between the two groups is almost completely a matter of luck.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. BS! It's a matter of choice.

[Callisto32]

50. Untrammeled free market?

Oy, I'm surprised anybody can say that with a straight face. Have you seen the miles high stacks of regulatory rules in the united states. Maybe we should talk about state-granted monopolies, like first class mail. Wanna set up a radio station? Maybe if the FCC ever manages to cut through their own red tape. Whatever the source of your weird brand of social injustice, it certainly is not the free market.

As for the "claptrap" I hardly think that is what is going on. It is really more like this: in nature, sometimes the predator gets taken out by his would-be prey, and the prey animals are rarely as under-matched as they look. Have you ever seen a cow kick? Trust me, it's impressive. I don't feel to terribly bad for the wolf that gets taken out by rutting buck deer, and I don't feel to terribly bad for a human predator who gets taken out by a well armed would-be victim. A person has to take responsibility for the risk involved in their choices. If you choose to hurt others, there is a very real possibility that the people you choose to hurt will fight back.

...I swear this was a coherent thought when I started.

[rrneck]

63. In the immortal words of Leona Helmsley,

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes ..."

How much junk mail have you gotten this holiday season? I don't doubt for a minute that it's damn near impossible to start a radio station with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and every other media behemoth circling Washington like a bunch of vultures. You and I are not participants in the free market. We're the little people. Only a select few actually get to enjoy the benefits of untrammeled capitalism. The latest economic bubble/debacle is ample evidence of that.

Among groups of individuals those that take more than they give usually profit. Among groups of groups of individuals, otherwise known as societies, the group that fosters the greatest sense of altruism and reciprocity is the more successful. That is the reality of the phrase "survival of the fittest". In evolutionary terms, fit doesn't mean strong, it means adaptable. The "dog eat dog" attitude toward social organization is based on a pejoration of evolutionary theory. It's a dog eat dog world because it's being run by rats. That's why the sentiment expressed by Jay Gould is doubly prescient today.



Please note: In my previous post I referred to S.J. Gould incorrectly. Steven Jay Gould was a noted paleontologist, historian of science and one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. Jay Gould was a nineteenth century robber baron to whom I should have attributed the quote in post #13 about one half of the poor killing the other half.

If you sent me out to fuck up, I'd fuck up on the way.

[PavePusher]

67. O.K., you owe me...

a bite of sandwich, about half a pint of wine, and a keyboard restoration.

:spray:

[Callisto32]

68. What you describe is what I consider to be the problem.

However, (correct me if I misread you) my solution is not that we try to fix this by regulating the market further, but greatly reduce, or even stop regulation. Generally, regulations only serve as a barrier to entry for people that may be able to provide a better service, or the same service at a reduced price. If people were allowed to freely compete, it would be much easier for the wealth to move around, rather than become concentrated in the hands of a few people at the top of various things that got in on the ground level and are now the only ones with the resources to navigate the maze of regulation. I basically see government regulation of the market functioning as a kind of legitimized Ponzi scheme.

[rrneck]

69. The last ten years

have seen the climax of four decades of deregulation. That's what got us into this mess. Not only was there no regulation of derivitives markets, hedge funds, and ratings agencies, there frequently wasn't even any meaningful oversight at all. And that's just financial markets. Corporate scandals are our most innovative art form. And lets not forget the role of private industry in the greatest foreign policy debacle in the history of the nation. Where did those tons of hundred dollar bills go anyway?

I disagree, but you're welcome to try it if you want. Why don't you see if you can open an electronics shop across the street from a Wal Mart.

[Callisto32]

70. 2 points

Point 1: People should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they want, even if that thing is essentially nothing. If you were buying a derivative, or buying into a hedge fund, the impetus is on you to look into what you are buying, educate yourself on what you are doing and weigh the risks. It is morally reprehensible to steal from the populace at large to pay for an agency to protect individual people from their own imprudence. Each investor should be made responsible for their own oversight. I, personally have not been all that affected by the "financial crisis" because I was able to look into the options and see the overblown house of cards that was/still is the market. What has affected me is the government doubling the money supply and manipulating the various markets into waves by sending incorrect market signals through creative interpretation of data like "well we thought we were going to lose 300k jobs, but only lost 275k so this is all great!"

Point 2: Because that would be stupid. More on point, the violence of the state should not be used to protect me from my own ability to innovate and compete with someone. If I could provide the products that you can't get at that WalMart, and there are many, than perhaps it could succeed. I live a county with about 35,000 people and we manage to support a Wal-Mart, Target, 3 major chain grocers, a Boscovs, a Bon-Ton, a JC Penny, a Sears, and a host of smaller specialty shops, both private and franchise. Why? Because each provides a unique service. To ignore the ability of smaller, more flexible business models to fill niche markets seems silly, at best.

[gorfle]

74. The flaw in your logic.

If you were buying a derivative, or buying into a hedge fund, the impetus is on you to look into what you are buying, educate yourself on what you are doing and weigh the risks.

You need to listed to this:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242

After listening to it, you can clearly see why regulation is needed, and you cannot rely on people's intelligence or prudence to protect ourselves.

First of all, during the run-up to the mortgage crisis, the standards for making loans kept going lower and lower and lower, culminating with things like "NINA" (no income, no assets) loans.

It's easy to blame people who sign up for these loans, but it's just as easy to see why people would. People used to believe that when you went to apply for a loan if you were given the loan it was because they checked you out and thought you were able to repay. Many people erroneously believed that. But in this case, the people making the loans were immediately reselling them to other people, and consequently did not care if the loans would be repaied or not! There should be regulation in that regard, because making loans with no regard for the risk involved is just a recipe for disaster, as we have seen.

As for the people buying these derivatives, they were paying people a lot of money to rate them and tell them whether or not they were good investments. They thought they were educating themselves and weighing the risks.

Ultimately, regulation is required because it's not just the people making the bad decisions who get burned in the end. Yes, all those people who took on loans they could not afford are now paying the price, and the people who bought those loans are paying the price, but now, thanks to all the bailouts, we are all paying the price. I personally would rather have had some regulation to prevent it.

[Callisto32]

75. You have not addressed the core problem, though.

Regulation implies government involvement, it will need to be paid for. That will take taxes, which are legalized theft. Theft is wrong.
How can you justify stealing from people to pay for the regulation of something? What I or you or anybody else would rather is not the point, it is simply wrong to initiate violence, always.

This is not an issue of a flaw in anybody's logic. It is an issue of whether or not we are willing to have two sets of standards, one for natural persons and one for the state. I, for one, am not.

[rrneck]

77. Government involvement paid for by taxes

are the price of a civilized society. Taxes are not theft, they are an extension of the same reciprocity that has held human societies together for millions of years.

Conflating civic duty with violence is absurd on it's face.

The state should be composed of natural persons. Unfortunately, due to the magic of corporate personhood the state has become dominated by a legal fiction masquerading as a person which funnels a growing share of our national wealth into the pockets of an oligarchy of people who seem to thing they are something more than human.

[gorfle]

81. Precisely. Taxes are not theft. n/t

.

[Callisto32]

84. I know I am ressurecting an old thread, I did not have an opportunity to respond before.

Scenario 1: You make money. It is your property. I come along and use force to take it. We call that robbery.

Scenario 2: You make money. It is your property. The state comes along and uses force to take it. We call that taxes.

Sorry, they are the same thing: violent removal of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use and enjoyment thereof.

I would say that calling submission to violence simply because it is the state, which is nothing more than a group that for some reason people allow to use violence, that is using that violence a "civic duty" is absurd on its face. Besides, if something is a duty, than paying it can be said to have no real value. Look up "the pre-existing duty rule" in contracts (the party made law based upon voluntary interactions and providing people with the benefit of their bargains) if you don't believe me.

Finally: Show me where I obligated myself to pay taxes. My signature or mark appears nowhere on any legal document doing so, so far as I am aware.

[rrneck]

86. Do you like coffee?

When you go to the coffee joint and get a cup of joe, explain how that is not theft.

[gorfle]

82. Taxes are not theft.

Regulation implies government involvement, it will need to be paid for. That will take taxes, which are legalized theft. Theft is wrong.
Yes, regulation does imply government involvement, and yes, it will need to be paid for, probably through taxes. But taxes are not theft, they are a civic duty that pays for the underpinnings of our chosen, civilized society.

We justify these taxes simply because the chaos and cost that ensues from not collecting them far outweighs collecting them and using them to implement protections that protect and benefit everyone.

A very simple analog are police forces. We tax (steal, in your parlance) money from everyone to hire police because the consequences of not doing so would be lawlessness with the corresponding economic damage that follows from such conditions, which would be far more financially (and otherwise) damaging to everyone than the taxes are.

You have not addressed the core problem, though.

Yes I did. The core problem was that the people making the loans did not care one whit whether those loans would or could be repaid, because they immediately sold the loan to someone else. Obviously there was insufficient regulation to make them care, and there was so much money to be had while the scheme lasted that greed held sway.

[rrneck]

76. Of course people

should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they want, even if the product is basically nothing. How else would you explain the career of David Hasselhoff? But derivatives aren't nothing, they are speculative instruments from which income is derived, hence the name. Proper regulation would insure that those selling them would be honest about their quality and those buying them would be using their own money to do so and responsible for their losses when their speculations turn out to be wrong. None of that happened because they were either not regulated or the SEC allowed them to regulate themselves.

The "violence of the state to protect you from your ability to innovate and compete"? That is an absurd statement but I'm pretty sure you're not talking about troops in the streets, but are referring rather to excessive regulation. Don't like it? Fine. Hire yourself a phalanx of attorneys billing $500 an hour, a lobbyist firm to spread a few million bucks around Washington, and of course a few hookers can never hurt. Oh, and don't forget the media blitz trumpeting your value to society and all the good works you are doing. That's how Wal-Mart, Target, 3 major chain grocers, a Boscovs, a Bon-Ton, a JC Penny, and a Sears get past those pesky regulations so you will have the privilege of supporting them.

Look. No matter how craven, duplicitous, ineffective, crooked, stupid and cowardly our elected representatives are, they still have to stand in front of us and offer some explanation for the absurdities they perpetrate in our name. We, the people, can fire them. You won't get that opportunity from any oligarchy of business interests. You will never see them, never hear them, never even know who they are. They will just build a world where you believe you have to give them whatever they want so you can have whatever is left over.

damn typos

[patrice]

15. Why do people take anonymous posters on the internet to be whatever they claim to be?

Why would you think anyone and everyone claiming to be a gun control advocate on the internet IS in fact a gun control advocate?

Isn't the absurdity of the position you claim that they take re criminals just a little bit of a clue that they could just possibly NOT be for real?

No one lies about who they are or why they are saying whatever they are saying on the internet?

:rofl:

Either you are a fool, or you have some agenda of your own in being so completely un-critical. Could your agenda be a desire to take part in this utterly transparent kabuki theater about how horrible "gun grabbers" are?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Who does that?

[patrice]

24. You do in your blanket generalizations about "gun grabbers".

It hasn't occurred to you that in order to make gun control advocates look bad, someone might pretend to be one and then espouse ridiculous principles like the one you ascribe to "gun grabbers" (i.e. something like "all criminals are poor misunderstood victims caught up in acts of desparation") as I said, pretend to be a gun control advocate and say silly offensive stuff, so that people such as yourself can feel antagonism and, in some cases even hate, for those stupid "gun grabbers" and go around telling all of their gun-loving friends how stupid and offensive "gun grabbers" are - - no one would have even the slightest interest in seeing that kind of negative attitude and behavior toward gun control advocates develop by helping it along with a little dishonest posing?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Yeah the posters with tens of thousands of posts here are just acting ridiculous. LOL.

That's the best joke I've heard in a while. Thanks.

[patrice]

30. LOL! Do you have any Real idea where you are? It's the goddam internet, 10s of Ks of posts

are nothing unusual and could even be taken as support for the possibility that the poster IS up to something. There is at minimum nothing about lots of posts that excludes the possibility of posing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. So the people who cheer for defensive shootings are gun grabbers acting to make gun owners look bad?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. I love your blanket generalizations about gun lovers by the way. You are probably just acting...

ridiculous to make gun grabbers look bad though.

[patrice]

27. Could be, but I really am curious why you appear to be so foolish and, btw,

one blanket generalization deserves another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Plenty of people here aren't what they say, plenty are though.

The gun control lobby has made many of those same ridiculous arguments for years. Why would it be surprising that someone would parrot the VPC here?

[patrice]

33. It wouldn't be surprising, but you assume only one reason for doing so, when they ARE more

motives than just because they agree with VPC. It is at least as possible that they want to provoke gun lovers, especially anyone hanging out here in the gungeon on DU. Everyone here knows how, uhhhhh, . . . strong gun-lovers are here. What would be the point of going into the gungeon and trying to convince any of you of anything other than guns are good? Looks pretty suspicious to me for anyone to try to say anything as patently and completely absurd as you say the did/do in you OP, very suspicious indeed, not only because they're talking to a bunch of, pardon the reference, gun NUTS, but also because they are saying something that is completely crazy according to your OP. Why do you want to take such posers seriously? except that it suits your own purposes. You're playing along with them in order to make gun control advocacy sound crazy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. I never assumed there was only one reason. You said I assumed it.

Again with the gun lovers no one here is a gun lover. I'm glad the gun control advocates are here I'm also glad they are so honest.

[patrice]

52. YOUR blanket assumptions in how you represent what the "gun grabbers" are saying:

Perhaps you are incapable of recognizing bias when you produce or see/hear it?

Universal statements are evidence of personal assumptions.

Why do those here who support gun control think the criminal is a nice guy down on their luck?

No qualification in the underlined phrase, nothing like "some of those here who support ..." or "It seems that those here who support ..." or "those here who claim to support gun control think" or "... seem to think ..."

Why do those here who support gun control think the criminal is a nice guy down on their luck?

No qualification in this underlined phrase either, nothing like "some criminals are nice guys" or "the criminal might be down on their (sic) luck."

The same thing goes for underlined portions of the rest of the OP:

(All) Home invaders are just hungry looking for something to eat. (All) Burglars only want to steal a stereo to sell and buy some food. Of course none would ever do anything more than take something of value. None of them would ever assault, rape or kill anyone. This (and no other) is the constant meme here from the gun grabbers. Can someone help me with their logic?

1. If these ARE indeed the real statements of some gun grabbers that are being espoused to you and you do not recognize their absolutely absurd blanket generalizations, then I think you are somewhat at a disadvantage in the marketplace of memes. And I would add that your generalizations about gun grabbers are quite similar to what you claim is their generalizations about criminals.

2. If these ARE indeed the real statements of some gun grabbers that are being espoused to you and you DO recognize their absolutely absurd blanket generalizations, but pretend that they are valid representations of gun grabbers' thinking anyway, then you are a dishonest person trying to influence the minds of others dishonestly.

3. If these ARE NOT the real statements of some gun grabbers that are being espoused to you, then you are a dishonest person on that count too, to which I would add that your appeal to others is of the same type as that which you criticize, a blanket assumption, about gun grabbers in your case, compared to gun grabbers' blanket assumptions about criminals.

2 out of 3 cases for falsehood + sloppy rhetoric (i.e. arguing against one set of blanket assumptions with another set of blanket assumptions) = lose.

[SteveM]

59. Such complexity; such speculation. Again, any examples in reality? (nt)

[eqfan592]

62. Speaking of "sloppy rhetoric".... (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Your blanket assumptions definitely reveal your personal bias.

You do realize that not all proponents of stronger gun control laws are gun grabbers, right? There are those here who want all guns gone, they also exist outside of DU Feinstein comes to mind. Your rhetoric is indeed sloppy. Common sense and any substantive reading in the gun forum should have told you that I wasn't referring to every single person who wants increaed restrictions on gun purchases. Many gun owners here welcome NICS checks on private sales, hell I support it under certain conditions. What's funny is you have done exactly what you accuse me of doing. 2 out of 3 cases for falsehood + sloppy rhetoric (i.e. arguing against one set of blanket assumptions with another set of blanket assumptions) = lose. So it appears you lose. I would say game effort but it was actually pretty weak.

[SteveM]

58. You think "shills" are setting up pro-2A folks? Please provide examples...

Surely, you see some possibilities in the group of "gun-controllers" who post here regularly. Who are they? Is this a violation of DU rules? Your speculation seems a little contrived, to be honest. But I'll wait for some examples; "calling out" some folks has been done before. (Frankly, If there are such individuals, I don't want them around, either.)

[eqfan592]

28. So you're saying that....

...we should now assume all these people who are making these statements are in fact not who they say they are and do not actually believe what they are saying because who could possibly believe something so absurd?

"Why would you think anyone and everyone claiming to be a gun control advocate on the internet IS in fact a gun control advocate?"

I don't believe FMD ever said he DID think that way.

"Isn't the absurdity of the position you claim that they take re criminals just a little bit of a clue that they could just possibly NOT be for real?"

Not at all. I've met plenty of people in person that have espoused identical thoughts as those pointed out by FMD. Shockingly enough, people are actually capable of holding very absurd positions.

"Either you are a fool, or you have some agenda of your own in being so completely un-critical. Could your agenda be a desire to take part in this utterly transparent kabuki theater about how horrible "gun grabbers" are?"

This is just insulting and unnecessary, as is the rest of your post for that matter.

The basic premise of your post appears to be that we should assume when somebody holds an absurd position that they must be "joking" or just "making it up" because it's the internet, of course, and no rational person could think that way. I'm sorry, but I frankly think that position to be somewhat...absurd, which does make for an interesting little paradox. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Gun grabbers aren't horrible, just horribly misguided.

:popcorn: :rofl: :spray: You walked right into that one.

[patrice]

35. On purpose, but I'm sleepy now . . . and bored, so . . .

Good night :hi:

[aikoaiko]

47. False flaggers. I've suspected a few.

But in general I think the views represented on DU about guns genuinely out there even if some people are faking it for devious purposes.

[proteus_lives]

42. Naivete and they think they're supposed too. PC crap.

I have sympathy for those who down on their luck, ill, poor or in hardship. Until they start hurting people, robbing people or breaking the law. They don't have the right to do that. Off to jail they go.

And I don't have sympathy for the criminal mind-set, "I like to steal, kill and rape people. I'm lazy, amoral or a drug addict." Fuck them.

[patrice]

53. I think OP is a clear example of how just as much could be said about gun lovers.

[benEzra]

51. Because it's the evillll gunzzzzssss that made them bad people...

and if the magical/psychosexual influences of guns were gone, those who are currently violent predators with no regard for human life would instead be caring and compassionate.

[Artie Bucco]

57. I Don't doubt

that there are some people in other countries that steal out of genuine poverty. I can tell you for certain that there are many youths in my home country of Mexico that do steal out of poverty and being hungry.

Here in the States there is a huge disparity of wealth and the poor and minorities are fucked over. I will tell you that the root cause of crime in the United States is the War on Drugs and a culture of violence in many cities. You can't really blame poverty as a root cause of crime look at the statistics for Texas border cities like Laredo, Brownsville and El Paso these cities have high poverty rates and have much less crime than northern cities of similar size.

I know damn well the kids that broke into my house weren't starving since they broke into other houses here in the neighborhood. These kids 4 or 5 of them where 14-16. If they would have gone into the wrong house and shot up they would have received a great deal of sympathy from many here and no doubt people would have called the person who did the shooting a murder even if they were just working class types, like the guys that stopped the kids from carrying me and my family's TVs in the alley behind our house by pointing a gun at them.

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms...You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man." -- Eugene V. Debs

[Ready4Change]

56. Selective Vision. People Don't see what they Don't Want to see.

There is no single type of criminal. Some are down on their luck, some are dedicated killers, and there's a whole range in between.

And there are news stories about all of them out there. News readers are funny. Most people tend to seek out stories that confirm their world view. As a result, because they select those types of stories, what they read tends to reinforce their preconceived notions.

This is true on both sides of the coin, btw. If you feel criminals are all bloodthirsty, then stories that support that view resonate with you, and feed that view. OTOH, if you think criminals are victims of society, and need help more than punishment, then that sort of story is what you will notice.

It's an emotional issue on both sides, and it is very hard to step back, take it all in and, over a long time period, allow all that you see to inform your view. Most people THINK that's what they do, but I doubt that anyone actually succeeds. Myself included.

[benEzra]

61. Well said. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

65. If I am facing a criminal who is threatening violence to me...

I don't have the luxury of considering what forces drove him to that extreme. I must defend myself. At that moment, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter where he is on the spectrum. The situatioon becomes binary, defend or submit.

[LAGC]

71. During my brief stint as a Burglar...

Me and my "friends" always picked corporate targets, not individual homes mainly because that's where the good loot was, but also I'm sure somewhere in the back of our minds was the very real possibility of running into an armed home-owner who could have easily chosen our lives over his property being stolen. Do I think protecting private property is more important than taking someone's life? No. But its an occupational hazard that goes with that line of "work." We never stole out of necessity or to fuel drug addictions, but just for the thrill of the "game" and of course the ill-gotten loot.

Fortunately, I grew out of it, realized I was no good at being a criminal because I kept getting caught. But if I did ever get shot in the commission of any of my crimes, I wouldn't have blamed anyone but myself. Its simply an occupational hazard that goes with that line of "work."

[JonQ]

83. Don't really care what their motives are

once they enter someone elses house without permission they take their lives in to their own hands.

It's hard to tell a down on his luck but basically good guy just looking for a loaf of bread to feed his starving family from a dangerous meth addict who is prone to violence at 3 in the morning when he's smashing in your front door.

Better safe than sorry.