Commander PK Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Edit: Painkiller, to steal from the gun rights advocate's argument. Homicides are down in a big way since the 1980's in Anacostia. DC has some of the strictest control laws out there. The idea of gun control is not to prevent all crime and violence, but to try to make it tougher and limit it a bit. Make the criminal jump through a couple extra hoops. Make the gun dealer think twice before selling his wares to people who either are or will sell their merchandise to bad guys. The problem with trying to "make it tougher" and "limit it a bit" is that it only ends up affecting the people who are simply exercising their right to own guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for self-defense. No matter how many restrictions they put on guns, they will always be readily available to criminals who deal in criminal ****, and then you make potential victims out of a population who aren't trying to be criminals, but now have limited means to defend themselves against these nuts. Give me one good reason why I should support more restrictions on people like me from purchasing weapons, when the criminals will still get them along with the drugs and everything else that comes up from Mexico and other places illegally? More Gun Control means only the criminals (who by their very nature do not care about laws) will have them. The mass shootings? Mass shootings are not about the guns, it's about the lack of respect for human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Rehashed time and time again. Criminals do not care about legal...that's the biggest point that many people miss. . . . therefore all laws are useless, and should be repealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 . . . therefore all laws are useless, and should be repealed. Not at all, but sometimes people need to accept when the cat is out of the bag. Prohibition failed because demand was high. The War on Drugs has failed because demand is high. The war on guns has failed...well it because it should be obvious. Guns can't be uninvented, and Americans love their guns. Big guns small guns, long guns short guns, and that is a cultural issue (problem) depending on your point of view that can't just be "undone." Until criminals can't just get their guns from any black market dealer they decide to purchase from....I see no good reason for my rights and yours to be curbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 The problem with trying to "make it tougher" and "limit it a bit" is that it only ends up affecting the people who are simply exercising their right to own guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for self-defense. The mass shootings? Mass shootings are not about the guns, it's about the lack of respect for human life. Are you sure about that? People say this often enough, but how do we know that it "only" affects law abiding citizens. Seems unlikely to me. Any evidence proving that gun control laws have no limiting powers whatsoever on those criminially or maliciously inclined. The mass shooting bit I don't want to even go into as it's a ridiculous argument. If it's not about the guns then why in 99% of the cases are they always in use? Are murderers respectors of human life? How about rapists? Child abductors who use a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Again, how does the criminal have more access and less hoops? That isn't remotely reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Not at all, but sometimes people need to accept when the cat is out of the bag. News Flash: Everyone knows that criminals break laws. The reason people are dismissing your Talking Point is not because "people need to accept it". It's because it's a stupid, irrelevant, argument. Laws against drunk driving do not prevent drunk driving. That does not mean that they must be opposed, weakened to the point of irrelevancy, or outright repealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Again, how does the criminal have more access and less hoops? That isn't remotely reasonable. Wasn't quite what I meant, but what the hey. If we raise the bar for getting guns, by demanding training classes, background checks, mandatory delays, or whatever means we find reasonable then conventional means will be a bit tougher for all including theoretically criminals. Today, criminals, murderers and the insane according to gun rights' groups have more access and less hoops than the average citizen. After all, they can go to these states with few if any restrictions and purchase a gun as you or I might, they can get it via stealing one from an honest citizen, or they can go underground to a black market. Clearly, gun control will not cut off all access points to gun acquisition, but by the extent it makes it harder for us (or more inconvenient if we're being honest because we're not talking about prohibitions or bans) it also makes it tougher for them. Perhaps tough enough, that a guy like the Aurora shooter without access to black market means might never have gone in that movie theater and shot up the place. Then again, maybe he would have, but it would have taken longer. Who knows... maybe if he had to go through black market means being a complete amateur he would have gotten on someone's radar and the shooting would have been prevented. All of this is speculation. It could have happened exactly as it did happen even with better laws and more importantly better enforcement of those laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 The problem with trying to "make it tougher" and "limit it a bit" is that it only ends up affecting the people who are simply exercising their right to own guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for self-defense. And that is a flat out untrue claim. Limiting access to guns will not make it impossible for criminals to get guns (and let's just ignore the people who weren't criminals until after they got their gun). But it absolutely will affect them. (At least, if we can manage to overcome the NRA's attempts to make any laws unenforcable, and manage to create some restrictions which actually do restrict.) Are you sure about that? People say this often enough, but how do we know that it "only" affects law abiding citizens. Seems unlikely to me. Any evidence proving that gun control laws have no limiting powers whatsoever on those criminially or maliciously inclined. Oh, I have no doubt that there are some studies or statistics which at least suggest that, say, gun bans in DC didn't cut down much on drug dealer's ability to get them. News flash: Drug dealers know where the city limits are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 In no way does it make it harder for the bad guys. Gun laws exist already. There is not any new law that I can think of that will make it harder for the criminal to have access. Do you see where I'm coming from? EDIT: I was posting from my phone and messed up a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 The war on guns has failed...well it because it should be obvious. . . . because there has never been one, outside of NRA fundraising brochures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 News flash: Drug dealers know where the city limits are. That is a very fair criticism and a huge part of the reason why local gun control may be ineffective. It's also why I hope for, but don't expect for national reform. The cowards and ne'er do wells in Congress would never attempt meaningful gun control legislation especially during an election year. Even with the impetus of Newtown with a clear majority in favor of action the gun lobby neutered any effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 And that is a flat out untrue claim. Limiting access to guns will not make it impossible for criminals to get guns (and let's just ignore the people who weren't criminals until after they got their gun). But it absolutely will affect them. (At least, if we can manage to overcome the NRA's attempts to make any laws unenforcable, and manage to create some restrictions which actually do restrict.) Oh, I have no doubt that there are some studies or statistics which at least suggest that, say, gun bans in DC didn't cut down much on drug dealer's ability to get them. News flash: Drug dealers know where the city limits are. Really? How did the assault weapons ban impact attacks using assault weapons? How did the DC gun ban impact murders in DC? How did the Chicago gun ban impact murders in Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Really? How did the assault weapons ban impact attacks using assault weapons? How did the DC gun ban impact murders in DC? How did the Chicago gun ban impact murders in Chicago? Thank you for making the very stupid arguments that I predicted somebody would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Thank you for making the very stupid arguments that I predicted somebody would. It's amazing to me how one side of this argument always classifies the other side as posting "stupid arguments" and dismissing these arguments with thoughts and wants and wishes. Facts are facts. Mass shootings are, no matter what anyone says, extremely rare. you have a 1/10 of 1% chance of dying from a gunshot, and that 1/10 of 1% include self inflicted gun shots (suicide). Violent crime across the board is down drastically over the last 35 years. Including gun violence. And yet we are berated daily with calls for stricter gun laws and national reform. And this is in regards to Constitutionally protected right, which has been affirmed by the courts repeatedly in striking down city wide gun bans. No matter how many times a reddit survey or the BS mass shooting story (debunked by CNN) gets relayed, all signs point towards a continued decline in gun violence. So if you think my arguments are stupid, that's cool. I think it is stupid to discuss making legal gun ownership more difficult and creating national registrations that will be checked and enforced (but god forbid we require a voter ID cause that disenfranchises people from exercising a Constitutional right) when there are already 300+ million guns in the US. And there are study after study (including some done by the staunchly conservative Harvard University) stating that gun control will not reduce gun crimes. Why? Because the rate of gun crimes committed by legal gun owners is ridiculously low and new laws will only impact them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 .1%...meaning point one. Not one percent, not ten percent...point one. Sounds pretty rare to me. My odds of getting in a fatal car accident are probably better. ( No I have no looked up the numbers ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Let's end all gun control laws and let everything sort itself out. Conservatives do believe in Darwin after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Let's end all gun control laws and let everything sort itself out. Conservatives do believe in Darwin after all! When did this become about conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I'm convinced. 1,000 deaths a day is no big deal, and we should do nothing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 We have laws against shooting people. We have laws against killing people. We don't take away a person's driving privileges until after they get caught drunk driving. Do you really want to compare the two? You have to register to drive. You have to be of a certain age. You have to pass a test. You can be pulled over any time by the police for violating a myriad of driving rules. I WISH owning a gun was remotely treated like driving a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Do you really want to compare the two? You have to register to drive. You have to be of a certain age. You have to pass a test. You can be pulled over any time by the police for violating a myriad of driving rules. I WISH owning a gun was remotely treated like driving a car. Since driving and DUI laws don't stop every single incident and death they are useless and should be repealed. Stop treading on me...<or insert some other meaningless phrase here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Do you really want to compare the two? You have to register to drive. You have to be of a certain age. You have to pass a test. You can be pulled over any time by the police for violating a myriad of driving rules. I WISH owning a gun was remotely treated like driving a car. One is a Constitutional right. I was responding to the DUI post made by someone on the other side of the debate. But if you read through the whole thread, you would know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Is operating a motor vehicle a right? Is ANONYMOUSLY carrying a gun? If the right to be free from searches, unless a warrant has been issued, based on probable cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 One is a Constitutional right. I was responding to the DUI post made by someone on the other side of the debate. But if you read through the whole thread, you would know that. Guess what. The side of the debate I am on is not the side that introduced the DUI comparison. But since your taking potshots, why bother actually reading the thread, right? My post wasn't necessarily directed at you, Popeman. I apologize if it came across that way. I have been reading the thread and my post was a general response to some of what I consider the more ridiculous analogies and views by SOME gun advocates in the thread, which doesn't mean your specific views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 . . . because there has never been one, outside of NRA fundraising brochures? I consider the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to be a front on that war. A law that accomplished absolutely nothing, and letting it expire has not caused the sky to fall. You may think my arguments are stupid and irrelevant, and I know I'm in the minority on this board on this issue, and that's perfectly fine, but understand there are plenty of people out here who think exactly the way I do and believe it 100%. You may hate and despise the NRA Larry, but it's not NRA members who are out here killing each other and innocents in droves. Whether the NRA exists or not, criminals will still get their guns by any means necessary. What is one more charge to a person who is willing to commit heinous crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 My post wasn't necessarily directed at you, Popeman. I apologize if it came across that way. I have been reading the thread and my post was a general response to some of what I consider the more ridiculous analogies and views by SOME gun advocates in the thread, which doesn't mean your specific views. OK, sorry for the rant. I edited my post to remove my overreaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.