Pat Toomey introduces budget that would balance the books in 10 years — but wouldn’t touch entitlements
posted at 7:02 pm on May 10, 2011 by Allahpundit
There’s already a nifty nine-page synopsis circulating. It looks fab on paper: No tax hikes, a modest surplus by 2021, and far less political risk for the GOP than Ryan’s budget insofar as Toomey’s plan would leave Medicare and Social Security unreformed. In fact, per page seven of the synopsis, his budget’s softer on Medicare than Obama’s is:
Medicare
This budget doesn’t reduce Medicare spending; it actually spends more on Medicare than either the president’s budget or the House-passed budget. This results from the fact that this budget permanently reforms the so-called “sustainable growth rate” so doctors do not face the prospect of devastating cuts each year. This plan also calls for medical malpractice reform.
So how do we get from $1.5 trillion in annual deficits to a surplus without touching entitlements? NRO was at the press conference for the rollout:
Pro-growth tax policies are at the heart of Toomey’s plan. His budget reaches balance by 2020 by lowering federal spending to 18.5 percent of gross domestic product, reforming the tax code, lowering marginal tax rates, and closing tax loopholes. It also reduces the corporate-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and indexes the alternative minimum tax for inflation…
“It is my view that a permanent solution to the fiscal challenges that we face will require broader reforms than what we have in this budget,” he said. “But this budget represents what we think of as a necessary first step; it reaches a balance.”
Toomey, a member of the Senate Budget Committee, said that he would vote for Ryan’s budget if it was brought to the floor. His budget, he emphasized, was not a competing document. “I see this as a different focus,” he said. “[Ryan’s] goal is long-term, it’s permanent solvency, and he walks through the structural reforms that would achieve that.”
In other words, while Ryan’s plan seeks permanent fiscal sustainability by reforming entitlements over the course of decades, Toomey’s just trying to get us back to zero in 10 years and leaving the conversation on entitlements to a later date. But … when is that later date? If not now, after a tea-party landslide in November, then when? I’m exasperated by the uncertainty, as is Cavuto in the clip below. Toomey’s reply is that they’re handcuffed by having a Democratic president and Senate majority so there’s no sense in chasing the white whale of Medicare reform now. Okay, but after all the rhetoric from Ryan et al. about how the fiscal apocalypse is nigh unless we deal with entitlements immediately, Toomey’s plan now turns around and says not only do we hypothetically have another decade before we have to move on it, we can afford to go easier on Medicare than even Obama wants to in the short-term and find offsetting savings elsewhere. I guess Toomey’s thinking that public awareness of the problem is bound to grow over the next few years as more Boomers end up on the rolls, leaving the parties with no choice but to take on entitlements, or possibly he figures that the political landscape will be better after 2012 assuming the GOP picks up seats in the Senate. Even if Obama is reelected, he’ll be a lame duck and Republicans will (probably) control both chambers of Congress. The political risk for Democrats in having O compromise under those circumstances will be minimal.
Among the GOP heavy hitters who co-sponsored Toomey’s bill: Rubio, DeMint, and Mike Lee. (Cavuto asked him about Rand Paul. Watch the clip to see his response.) Meanwhile, in case you’re wondering, yes, the Democrats do have a budget of their own: $4 trillion in deficit reduction, fully half of which is funded by tax increases. It doesn’t have a prayer of passing, but Kent Conrad had to submit it in order to win proud socialist Bernie Sanders’s vote and move it out of committee. So that’s the state of seriousness in the majority party this fine spring day.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
KTC aka nonpartisan is all bark and no bite. … and a p8ssy to boot. Run, run.
CW on April 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM
Excellent; please *do* continue this, especially as we approach the 2014 election cycle, please.
Midas on April 28, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Neither would I, considering they’ve done it already – aka Fast & Furious.
If one doesn’t happen in time, I have no doubt they’ll make sure one occurs.
Midas on April 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Schumer started already. Boston bombers MIGHT have been able to buy guns. America must be able to stop potential gun purchasers.
pat on April 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Old Country Boy on April 28, 2013 at 8:48 PM
Let’s do this again rightish.
Lets see, “million gunshops,” “tens of millions of guns” Is this an annual count? That is about 10 guns per year per shop. Each shop services about 30 citizens?
If you want to go to the largest gun shop on this continent, go to Wanamakers’ in Tulsa. Of the thousands of guns sold there, EVERY SINGLE ONE undergoes a federal background check. The only ones that don’t are carried on the back of an individual and sold l person to person. You librul A-Os are fabricating your dreams about the “millions” of guns sold to non-background checked persons at gun shows. The problem with discussing these things with the control nuts is that they do not have the ability to think or do math, but spout the DNC/marxist/librul mantra of the day.
Old Country Boy on April 28, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Wow.
You really did flee after someone challenging your religion.
Worse, you’re running away from folks you accused of being
Yet you lose arguments to them and have to run away from the threads because you don’t understand the topic you introduce.
Again, what does that say about you?
Well done, keep the change.
rogerb on April 28, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Right now we can’t compete for the gun control vote, so it is imperative that we pass gun control legislation so that we can start competing for the gun control vote, even though it won’t get us a single additional gun control vote.
- John Mccain
xblade on April 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Yeah man… if only the GOP fought as hard for righteousness. Fought as hard to defend the unborn. Fought as hard to protect property rights and and our other freedoms. Imagine this kind of determination to bring about the flat tax… or to completely bring to justice those responsible for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. Wow.. just imagine.. it would be a whole different country.
JellyToast on April 28, 2013 at 9:39 PM
BTW, keep the change, this is how one establishes a fact-based position:
See the numbers? That’s called “evidence”. 92% of all violent crimes don’t involve a gun.
Sorry about that.
Notice the credible link as well. That’s really important to establish why your position is sound.
(And a .gov link, too, with my data coming from a director appointed by Obama. Ha. I’m extra sorry about that part.)
Note numbers, sources, and links to verify.
—–
Compare that to yours after I asked for data and right before you ran away:
See the difference?
The readers do. I’m guessing you’ve built up quite a tolerance to being completely wrong by now, though, so this may or may not have any effect on your knowledge of the topic. I do hope you understand the value of facts and verifiable evidence over faith, though.
If not, I’m sure I’ll get to demonstrate it again to the readers the next time you post.
Sorry in advance about that. Feel free to get better at the debate, though. I’d enjoy at least a bit of a challenge.
rogerb on April 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM
West Virginians – Does this represent your vote? Certaibky there is someone else that can represnet you…….
famous amos on April 28, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Don’t go away mad.
Just go away.
Next time you pass by please do.
itsspideyman on April 28, 2013 at 10:11 PM
+100 I was surprised that it claimed that it stirred teh pot. Most of us are clamoring for, desire, would love to have some people to debate. It just never happens.
tom daschle concerned on April 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Sorry if there is a double post coming through. I don’t think the filter liked me linking as much as I did.
rogerb on April 28, 2013 at 10:13 PM
BTW, keep the change, this is how one establishes a fact-based position:
See the numbers? That’s called “evidence”. 92% of all violent crimes don’t involve a gun.
Sorry about that.
Notice the credible link as well. That’s really important to establish why a held position is sound and not worthless religious nonsense.
(And a .gov link, too, with my data coming from a director appointed by Obama. Ha. I’m extra sorry about that part.)
Note numbers, sources, and links to verify.
—–
Compare that to yours after I asked for sources and right before you ran away:
I’m guessing you’ve built up quite a tolerance to being completely wrong by now, so this may or may not have any effect on your knowledge of the topic. I do hope you understand the value of facts and verifiable evidence over faith, though.
If not, I’m sure I’ll get to demonstrate it again to the readers the next time you post.
rogerb on April 28, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Agreed. They’re incapable. ‘
I don’t think we have any progressives here with more than a superficial understanding of any of the topics that they introduce. That’s the most amazing part to me.
rogerb on April 28, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Speaking of:
Ed, Allah, can we please have another open registration soon? I doubt the new crop will be any better at debate or understanding the issues, but at least there would be some different names.
rogerb on April 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM
I’m happy this guy from WV is so concerned about our safety and the “children”.
Of course, he’ll be front and center advocating the right of someone to hack out a 3rd and 4th trimester baby.
He’ll also make sure that none of the law’s he’s passing apply to him. After all, he’s part of the ruling elite.
acyl72 on April 29, 2013 at 7:14 AM
Herein lies the difference between Democrats (i.e. Liberals) and Republicans (some of whom are Conservatives).
Republicans – we tried to repeal Obamacare and failed. So we give up.
Democrats – we tried to pass an “anti-gun” (h/t Hairy Reed) bill and failed. So we’ll try again and again and again and again and….
olesparkie on April 29, 2013 at 7:42 AM
So a False Flag Op that kills children would be a display of sophistication and intelligence?
conservativecaveman on April 29, 2013 at 8:00 AM
That’s not true.official statistics show violent crime is now at its lowest level for 30 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313942/UK-Peace-Index-Rate-murders-violent-crime-falling-faster-Western-Europe.html
Focusing on the most serious violence, the number of homicides currently recorded by the police has increased from 1961 to 2002/03, and shown a generally downward trend since. The number currently recorded for 2011/12 (540) is the lowest since 1989 .
Offences involving the use of firearms peaked later than overall violent crime with 24,094 offences being recorded by the police in 2003/04. Since then the number of such offences has fallen by 60% to 9,555 recorded offences in 2011/12. The current 16% fall between 2010/11 and 2011/12 is the eighth consecutive annual decrease in firearm offences.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/stb-focus-on–violent-crime-and-sexual-offences-2011-12.html
Also we have had no school shootings since Dunblane in 1996
mags on April 29, 2013 at 8:29 AM
Gee whiz, they already solved our economic issues, everyone has a job,foreign policies are brilliant as our country breezes along. So when you have solved all the problems why not disarm honest citizens so criminals won’t be endangered as they ply their trade. Brilliant!
Herb on April 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Love your posts, have read them for years…..
..and if memory serves, you’re a Steelers fan.
O.K., I’ll just say it, I think you’re one hell of a woman.
ToddPA on April 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Whom exactly do gun laws affect? The law-abiding not criminals. If politicians didn’t fear the law-abiding they would actually move to curtail criminal activity with firearms rather than use them as props to push for more gun restrictions such as the DOJ’s lack of prosecutions for firearms violations.
roy_batty on April 29, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Do you think that isn’t happening right now?
roy_batty on April 29, 2013 at 10:21 AM
How do gun control opponents respond to the Australian example?
libfreeordie on April 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM
I don’t really follow Great Britain’s news very closely, but since you appear to be a Brit, perhaps you could tell me.
How many school shootings did you have BEFORE Dunblane in 1996? I’ll settle for the previous 30 years.
makattak on April 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Are you talking about this?
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Errmmm, well snopes says the gun ownership laws in Australia and the U.S.A. are/have always been much different.
It also cautions about reading facts into something that doesn’t exist as the types of stats being used to make comparison don’t match in type.
avagreen on April 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM
…….seems that I posted this same response some time last year regarding the false comparison between Australia and the U.S. re guns, but here this argument appears, again.
avagreen on April 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM
That’s the point,when we saw that this man could legally hold and have access to numerous guns then we acted on it.If it happened 30 yrs before then we would of addressed it then.
We wouldn’t of waited for a second school shooting to see if there was a pattern
There was a massacre in Hungerford (not a school) in 1987 and that led to some gun’s being banned.
We have had about 4 massacres with guns in the last 30 yrs.We know that we might be unable to stop them all but we were going to make it as difficult as possible
I think the fact that we have only had 1 school shooting speaks for itself
mags on April 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM
The politicians (our self-proclaimed masters) just don’t get it. In spite of what their contrived polls may state; the vast majority of Americans do NOT want gun control. Let’s see something aimed at (and actually enforced) to stop criminals from getting guns. Of course, that will never happen, so they simply politicize & criminalize gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and continue to allow the criminal elements to have free access to guns.
The next bill to be brought up in the House and the Senate should be to outlaw politicians.
xmanvietnam on April 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM
However, a HUGE number of politicians DO get it, regardless of what the majority of “ignorant and misguided” Americans want, and must fight for gun control, to the point of confiscation and seizure. They fear what guns in the hands of concerned, law-abiding, citizens may do in reaction to what those politicians want to do to our Republic.
An unarmed population is one more easily controlled and manipulated.
hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM
I’m in favor of banning career politicians. One term and done. No running political office at any level for another five years, and no lobbying permitted either. Go back to the private sector and see how you like overbearing government policy chronically intruding and affecting your personal and business life outside the political bubble.
hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 12:23 PM
…
I know how you feel,i have posted the same response last year over British comparison to the U.S re guns but the same false argument keeps appearing,again
mags on April 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM
I’m curious as to why, as of at least 2009, UK journalists are reporting that since the gun ban of 1997, gun crime is once again soaring in the UK – to the point that police are now carrying guns for the first time. If gun control and confiscation is such a good thing, why hasn’t gun crime been completely eliminated – considering guns are essentially banned for nearly the entire population?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Also, while research is a bit difficult because of varying definitions of “violent crime”, it appears that since the gun ban, crimes using other weapons such as knives and clubs have gone up.
So I suppose that’s a plus – instead of being threatened with a gun and MAYBE shot (although that argument is contradicted by the above report), since you can’t have a gun to defend yourself you get stabbed or beaten instead. Sounds wonderful….
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM
“We’re going to work this bill with all of our hearts.”
Sen. Manchin, check your heart at the door and bring in your brains! We don’t want anymore infringements on the 2nd Amendment! Quit blaming the NRA and listen to the folks back home, you moron!
tomshup on April 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Looks like a hit and run.
Again, no actual knowledge of the topic, just religion and talking points.
Or else you could cite Mexico, right libfreeordie?
And, in reverse, how do gun control supporters (that’s you, lfod) respond to the Switzerland example?
We eagerly wait your informed response.
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Your turn, libfree.
Google it since you don’t know what I’m talking about.
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM
When Manching/Toomey/McCain or other traitorous ilk say we’re coming after your Constitutional rights……
Limited Government Conservative dog whistle hears…..
“Well of course we’re going to work out our hearts to protect our fellow Ruling class buds here in D.C. We can’t have a fully armed citizen class when this financial charade comes down falling on us. And besides the foreign debt lords that are buying our crap dollars are going to want assurances that if we have to turn over National parks and the resources under them that we won’t have an armed rebellion. Gays / Guns and Amnesty, full freeking speed ahead.”
PappyD61 on April 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM
keep the change, you really did run away after your religious views were challenged, didn’t you?
That’s pathetic.
I don’t mean that as an insult, either. I truly feel sorry for you.
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM
mags on April 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM
Ummm mags, hypocritical much?
You used a “tabloid” as a source then criticized someone else for doing it.
Hard Right on April 29, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Yep.
Most likely about 10 minutes after the next Newtown occurs. Short attention span theater and all.
ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on April 29, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Oh and Mags, those “stats” you cite are very suspiscious.
http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham
Hard Right on April 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM
No one said gun control would eliminate gun violence. But since they passed their gun control initiatives there has not been a single mass shooting, and gun violence is down 50%. But that’s not good enough somehow?
libfreeordie on April 29, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Exactly! How are dictatorships established? They feature gun registration and seizure (among other things). How is it that the U.S. has not yet buckled to an outright dictatorship? Its citizens are armed.
freedomfirst on April 29, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Libfree,
1) You wrongly attribute a decrease in firearms to a decrease in “gun violence”.
By your “logic”, the U.S. should look like WWIII.
2) I linked to an article that throws serioud doubt about the stats used by the UK govt.
3) I know you won’t bother with clicking on those links since that would violate your “religious” beliefs.
Hard Right on April 29, 2013 at 2:15 PM
So you don’t want to address the Switzerland question. Fine. I can understand why. Let’s stick with you continuing to lose your argument.
What percentage of violent crime in the US involves a firearm?
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM
And let’s stop operating on the assumptions the left wants to impose…those about crime and hunting.
While I may someday need my guns to protect me, my family, and/or property against a criminal or I may choose to go hunting…that’s not why I own. I own because it’s my right. Ownership by millions of citizens acts as a deterrent to an overreaching/out of control govt.
freedomfirst on April 29, 2013 at 2:20 PM
So it’s harder for criminals to get guns – but not impossible.
While it is actually impossible (practically speaking) for law abiding citizens to get guns. So the end result is the law-abiding are defenseless against criminals – regardless of what type of weapon they may have.
Perhaps you also haven’t noticed that despite increasing sales of guns, the US crime rates have nearly all gone down over the last 10 years or more. How could that be, if, by your logic, guns cause crimes?
No, as with most liberals, you completely miss the point. When it suits you, liberals like you often argue that there are many causes and factors invovled in crime. It’s only when the argument is about gun control that you try to make crime all about guns.
Letting law-abiding citizens have guns will never prevent crime – just like attempting to ban ALL guns also does not prevent crime – even gun based crime. Having guns does however allow people to defend themselves and stop or prevent crime when the situation allows. Estimates of armed citizens in the US stopping crimes range from 200,000 to 2 million per year – far more than the number of actual crimes committed with guns.
But by your logic, because we have so many guns there should be non-stop shootouts in the streets, but that doesn’t happen – except in the cities with the most strict gun control laws – i.e. those nearly as strict as the UK. And Mexico has a much higher gun homocide rate than the US despite having far more strict gun control, and a lower legal gun ownership rate. Meanwhile, Switzerland has a higher gun ownership rate than the US, and a lower crime rate. Explain.
The reality is that despite having roughly 300 million guns in the US, there are only about 30,000 gun deaths per year – and 2/3 of those are suicides. Can you do the math? What percentage of legal guns owned in the US are used in crimes?
And finally, all of this sidesteps the real purpose of US citizens right to bear arms – which is, when necessary, to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government – as we did in 1776.
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 2:31 PM
They’re fundraising off it.
And as it fades from the Senate’s to-do list the fundraisers make the case that the reason it’s fading is that libtards aren’t sending in enough money.
Then they get Harry to make a little noise about it like the fundraising is doing some good.
Repeat as necessary.
monkeyboy on April 29, 2013 at 2:35 PM
Gun violence in the UK is either up or down depending on who you listen to, but has overall crime gone up or down? From what I’ve seen it looks like crime with other weapons has gone up – easier to victimize an unarmed target.
So how has all that gun control worked out for Chicago? As usual, you libs really don’t care about poor blacks in the city.
What new laws have any of the Dems proposed that would stop the bloodshed of the blacks in Chicago? Give me just one.
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM
Read my comment again,if anyone uses the Daily Mail as a source and think it is reliable then why not take the most recent report as reference.
I sited the official figures.
Your ‘proof’ is coming from some statistic’s from 2000.The argument seems to be that our murder rate here is getting higher,it isn’t.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf
Why would i want to make things up? The gun laws following Dunblane was not about gun crime/violent crime it was to address mass murders with legally held gun’s.
There has been no more school shootings
mags on April 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM
Until the next one – at which time we expect to see you back here with an admission that you were wrong.
Plain and simple fact – an unarmed person is more likely to be a crime victim than an armed person. There’s a reason nearly EVERY mass shooting in the US has occurred in a designated “gun free zone”.
But to your logic, if removing nearly all guns was solely intended to prevent school shootings (where the UK only had 4 in the last several decades anyway), then banning all knives should prevent domestic violence stabbings from ever happening again, right? Eliminating all cars will prevent traffic deaths, right? Eliminating the subways should then be a good way to prevent any subway bombings from ever occuring again as well.
As an obedient subject of the Queen (sheeple), I doubt you would understand any of these quotes, but they accurately define how I prefer to live.
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Have you Brits done anything about banning organic peroxides and rucksacks yet? Far more people were killed by those items in the 2007 bombings than by guns at Dunblane.
Outlaw those items and I’ll bet you can prevent any further bombings in public transportation systems in the UK.//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM
2005
7bombingsdentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM
FIFM
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Dunblane happened in 1996,i have said we might not be able to totally eliminate the threat .If it happens again at least we know that we prevented it happening for 17 years and at least tried and didn’t think it’s inevitable.
You have to pass test to drive a car,it’s got to be insured and roadworthy.You have to wear a seatbelt ,you can’t drink and drive or even use phones while driving.Over the decades these small steps have reduced the amount of people killed
To prevent bombings on the tube we have had no bins in the stations including the airports for over 30yrs since the I.R.A campaign.There would be continuous alerts to not leave bags unattended and report suspect packages
I am not telling you how to live your life.It was a poster that brought the U.K into it.
Why issue insult’s about the Queen,what is up with you people?
mags on April 29, 2013 at 3:44 PM
But yet with the posts you’re making in this site, you are in fact trying to tell us how to live our lives. If you’re in the UK and you like that lack of freedom – fine, stay there – but mind your own business. If you want to willingly head down the path to life in a government mandated protective cocoon from anything and everything “dangerous” – go ahead – but don’t try to drag us along with you.
We don’t kneel to monarchs in this country and consider ourselves “their subjects” – that’s what’s up with us people.
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Wow, all that because you are wrong about violent/gun crime rate in the U.K
mags on April 29, 2013 at 6:20 PM
No – all that because you’re wrong about the whole issue.
You libs have a serious problem with cause and effect – and not understanding consequences – intended or otherwise.
You pick and choose the statistics that appear to support your argument, but what I’ve found is the statistics are not clear – and it’s not clear which ones are the most accurate.
But what IS very clear is the tool (gun, knife, club, bomb) is not the cause of the crime. We have several hundred million guns in the US that have never committed a crime. How could that be if guns cause the crimes?
So banning a particular tool does not stop the crimes from happening – it just changes the tool used by some of the criminals.
Banning guns because of Dunblane did not stop mass murder from happening in the UK. Mass murders have continued to happen in the UK – just not necessarily with guns. The killers just chose different tools – bombs – far more people dead and injured with less chance of anyone being able to stop the criminal in the act of the crime.
I’ve already asked, and you don’t seem to want to answer – Has the UK banned rucksacks and organic peroxides yet? If not, why not? Those were the tools used in multiple mass murders far larger than Dunblane. If the tool is the problem, those things should be outlawed by now.
There are a lot of factors that cause or prevent crimes – and banning a specific tool used in a few specific crimes does not stop crime from happening. Stopping the crime requires making the criminal choose not to commit the crime, or prevent the criminal from doing so – as by putting them in prison or a mental institution. Taking away one type of tool from EVERYONE only makes the criminal possibly choose a different tool, and makes everyone else defenseless.
dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM
So fleeing a thread again after it’s shown that you have no idea of the basics of the topic, eh professor?
Pathetic.
rogerb on April 29, 2013 at 7:29 PM
Too all these UK idiots who claim to live in crime free zones.
I could give a rats ass about your country.
Crime is NOT my fault, nor anyone elses fault who is posting here.
Crime is committed in general by a small percentage of the population, usually who are already prohibited from owning firearms, and who have a criminal history. This is true for anywhere, including the UK.
The difference here is we have RIGHTS that are not negotiable by a set of pinheaded jackasses wearing robes, skirts, jeans or pant suits and it god-damn says ” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED “.
So take your ” BUT WE DONT HAVE GUNS HERE ” and stick it up your asses.
TX-96 on April 29, 2013 at 10:59 PM
You Brits baffle and amuse me at times. So tell me, were those riots in August 2011 were just a minor trifle? Just a few prats, ponces and chavs? London, Birmingham and other cities? I found it most amusing when I was in London a couple of weeks after those riots and walked by a large mailbox like deal on the sidewalk, extoling passersby to “get a life, bin that knife!”. All to stop violent knife crime. You don’t need that 3 inch blade knife, just toss it away, no questions asked. This was in Victoria by the way, not far from the palace.
In October 2008 I had a chat with an elderly Brit in London about the election. And I quote, “Oh and that Sarah Palin woman… shooting bears out of helicopters.” Huh? “Doesn’t that bother you?” Uhhh, no. We moved on from politics after that. So here is a British woman, in her 50s or 60s and scared of guns. I’d just been to the Churchill war rooms the previous day and it struck me that in a mere 80 or so years all that stiff upper lip stuff used to fight jerry was gone. Replaced with a bunch of scared girls.
oryguncon on April 30, 2013 at 12:33 AM
I’m still unsure what it is about human nature that is so hard for some to understand.
Violence against other human beings didn’t start with the invention of the firearm. You can see it on every level from using brute strength and bare hands to nuking from orbit. Mankind has managed to find just about every method possible to kill each other in nearly every possible situation.
Anti-gun advocates keep spouting this fallacious nonsense that removing guns from the hands of individuals will somehow curb violence. When that doesn’t pass the smell test, we’re told how “gun violence” will drop and that is also a win as though a reduction in gun violence automatically means violence in general drops.
Anyone who has ever seriously pondered the aspects of safety understands these notions are totally bogus. Even worse, those of us who anticipate violence against us, whether it comes from criminals looking for mugging opportunities or a government looking to control the population, are called paranoid.
Even paranoid people have enemies.
I prefer to turn the mirror around and cast all those who slap the paranoid title on those like myself and proclaim you all naive. I have no doubt those of you who advocate for disarming still lock your doors. If you feel so safe, why not simply invite strangers into your home?
Despite a history of killing each other, guns are the first instrument that even the playing field. By removing guns from the hands of women, children, and the elderly, you simply condemn them to death at the hands of a more powerful individual.
The only thing that will stop violence (aside from restoring some morality to society) is the threat of being injured or killed. A powerful person will seriously reconsider harming another individual if they believe there is a good chance they will be harmed or killed in the process.
Why else do mass shooters choose places like shopping malls, crowded theaters, or schools to shoot others? Because there is no resistance and no expectation of retaliation.
Its basic human nature. Violence people go where they expect the least amount of risk. Those who don’t care about their own lives are even more dangerous and can only be stopped by being put down. Either way, the threat of violence against a criminal is the most powerful method of prevention.
If you fail to prevent it, then you always have the means to ensure it stops.
Flashwing on April 30, 2013 at 2:10 AM
How does a gun-grabber like this get elected from West Virginia?
MPan on April 30, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Democrats, electing a democrat ?
TX-96 on April 30, 2013 at 9:22 AM
The castration started well before Churchill, he was a knee-jerk back to basic survival mode. Britain was quite disarmed before WW2. Remember, the US sent them donated civilian rifles & shotguns for the Home Guard to use.
roy_batty on April 30, 2013 at 9:28 AM
you’re including armed robbery right?
libfreeordie on April 30, 2013 at 6:59 PM
It involves a firearm, right?
rogerb on April 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM
It’s not remarkable that Toomey or Manchin should say they will keep on it: when was the last time you heard a politician say “OK, I was wrong, people hated the idea so I am dropping it”?
virgo on May 1, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2