Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted May 12, '13 at 1:30am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,841 posts

Knight

I don't get why I was quoted for this response, since I've never argued that guns laws are useless.

It wasn't directed to you. It was for crazyape.

I'm sorry, what?  If you are a criminal you broke the law.  You can't be a criminal by obeying laws, and if you broke the law you aren't following laws.

Crazy states that criminals don't follow laws, so enacting laws are useless. This is a devious, yet unsettling, and worthless argument. Why? Because then it implies that the proponent indicates that all laws are useless at stopping criminals (the main purpose of law) since they're going to break them anyway. Hence, why laws in the first place? To prevent potential criminals? Yet if they are potential criminals, they're going to commit the crime, regardless of the law.

So the only thing keeping you from killing, or stealing, or harming, or whatever law you might break, is the law itself?   

Not for me. But in many cases yes.

They stop the people who are on the fence, or don't want to face the consequences.  They don't stop people who have no desire to do what the law prevents, because they wouldn't be doing it anyways.  They also don't stop the people who really want to do whatever the laws says not to, or who don't care about the consequences.  None of this means we shouldn't have laws, but it means we have to realize people will break them, which is why we have predefined consequences for such people.

Yes, yet Crazyape's ill-thought out post indicates that criminals, are not to be held back by the law. This is clearly not true. Laws will always have people breaking them, yet they will stop people on the fence, who are potential criminals, and who, without such laws, will proceed to carry out the crime. Hence, gun laws are useful.

 

Posted May 12, '13 at 2:32am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,970 posts

is the law itself?

The law itself is just words on paper. The enforcement of the consequences is the deterrent.

 

Posted May 12, '13 at 11:38am

crazyape

crazyape

478 posts

In going to just sum the whole argument up with a statement and supporting evidence. Taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens is ridiculous, because "They passed a law, so I'm going to turn in my weapons" said no criminal list.
I once watched a movie where only the military an police had guns. It was called Schindler's List.

And another point; you may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That's your right. You may not believe in God, that is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home, the first things you are going to do are: 1) Call someone who has a gun, and 2) pray to God they get there in time.

Now, I refuse to be defenceless. If someone breaks into my home and threatens my loved ones, I reserve the right to waste that mother****er. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. You can choose not to own a weapon, but don't take away my right to protect my family. You have no business even suggesting that.

Deuces, crazyape

 

Posted May 12, '13 at 11:52am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,841 posts

Knight

Taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens is ridiculous, because "They passed a law, so I'm going to turn in my weapons" said no criminal list.

Just because it would prove difficult to round up or collect illegal guns, does not make a sound argument that certain guns should be legalised forever. The British did so, in 1903, and today, even it's policemen don't carry guns. This works because, guns fall into disrepair, and bullets will run out.

And another point; you may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That's your right. You may not believe in God, that is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home, the first things you are going to do are: 1) Call someone who has a gun, and 2) pray to God they get there in time.

The root problem here is the robbery, and not whether one has the gun. In a country with low crime rates, the need for guns will lessen.

Now, I refuse to be defenceless. If someone breaks into my home and threatens my loved ones, I reserve the right to waste that mother****er. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. You can choose not to own a weapon, but don't take away my right to protect my family. You have no business even suggesting that.

Statistically, robbers have been shown to shoot at people with guns, and spare those without guns. I have a business suggesting that, because allowing everyone to have guns is a major con which far outweighs the benefits. This can be seen by the exceedingly low number of proven cases whereby a firearm helped, compared to the lives taken, the monetary damage induced, and the social costs, of letting millions of guns exist in the pipeline.

The entire United States also has an average gun-fuelled homicide rate of 2.97% per 100,000 citizens, with most countries above it also having extremely soft gun restrictions, some with almost none, such as Latin American, and African states. It is most definitely worth noting that countries with extremely strict gun laws are " not surprisingly " at the bottom of the list, with England and Wales again having a small 0.07% gun-based homicide rate per 100,000 citizens. Perhaps there is some possible correlation here, but I leave that for gun owners to think about.

 

Posted May 13, '13 at 12:03am

crazyape

crazyape

478 posts

This is The perfect time to whip out an old standby.
http://www.philosophymatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/problematicgunargument-300x300.jpg
Just thought I'd blow your whale crap out of the water.

 

Posted May 13, '13 at 12:57am

Kasic

Kasic

5,564 posts

...and then we come round circle to what I've been saying this entire time.

More strict gun control laws, not an outright ban. We keep them out of the hands of people unable to responsibly or safely use them via means of testing and background checks, and we regulate the types of guns available to civilians to lessen abuse.

Currently, after having read into the topic, handguns are the main problems. They're concealable, easily hidden, in-cumbersome, and small. They're used in most crimes.

Modified assault weapons so they cannot fire automatically would be fine, as would other types of rifles. If people want to shoot for sport, there could be separate licenses for various types of guns.

People need to realize that guns are dangerous weapons. Even if you use them in non-lethal ways, others use them in lethal ways. Keeping them available for anyone to get their hands on leads to pain and suffering.

 

Posted May 13, '13 at 1:26am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,970 posts

guns fall into disrepair

Even if it's broken, it still works for 'armed' robbery, as the threat is still perceived. If everyone followed partydevil's plan, it wouldn't even have to be loaded.

This can be seen by the exceedingly low number of proven cases whereby a firearm helped

What about the number of cases where being unarmed meant you were completely screwed? Aurora? The numerous school shootings?

If people want to shoot for sport, there could be separate licenses for various types of guns.

This doesn't work all the time, like with the guy in Norway. He got all the stuff, other than the police uniform, legally.

 

Posted May 13, '13 at 1:30am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,970 posts

low number of proven cases whereby a firearm helped

It's rather difficult to get data from massacres that don't happen.

 

Posted May 13, '13 at 2:10am

Kasic

Kasic

5,564 posts

This doesn't work all the time,

Nor do security systems such as locks, but we have them anyways. Doing nothing because there is no perfect solution is stupidity.

 

Posted May 13, '13 at 3:36am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,970 posts

I'm not saying 'do nothing', but regulations alone will never erradicate the problem entirely.

More strict gun control laws, not an outright ban.

How strict? A slow 'ban' seems to be what's coming. If the regulations and tests steadily get to a point where no one can pass, no one will have legal ownership.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!