Do Gun control proponets think that criminals obey laws?

Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Oct 2017, 11:30 am

AngelRho wrote:
The idea that “criminals will still get guns anyway” as an argument against gun control is crap. I get that. The problem I have with the legality of weapons issue is that if you force weapons underground, you make it impossible for people to protect themselves and still comply with laws.

You get a population well-armed and well-schooled in what self-defense means, when deadly force is actually appropriate, you have criminals or potential criminals thinking a bit harder on whether using force is advantageous or worth the risk.

My church at one point floated the idea of having a few men trained specifically to deal with the unthinkable, having them posted at key points within the sanctuary, and keeping concealed carriers secret from the congregation. I can’t say if anything ever came of it, because I really don’t know. But I do know for a fact one of our choir members does carry.

It’s not that any of us are itching for vigilante justice. It’s just that if someone does come in on a shooting rampage, they want it ended QUICKLY before the situation can become worse.

No, it won’t stop it from happening if a criminal wants to bad enough. But knowing that there are unidentifiable targets that will shoot back, plus tighter security measures will discourage some of those who might otherwise “feel lucky.”


Hard as it is for me to comprehend, there are people who will balk at the idea of people being armed while attending church services and no doubt more so at the idea of having them "strategically positioned". They don't grasp vulnerability or hard target as opposed to soft target.
I'm glad I'm not like that.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 Oct 2017, 12:42 pm

Raptor wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Raptor wrote:
They oversimplify it by thinking that if guns can somehow be removed from the equation that people will be disabled from doing harm to one another.


Not quite, the argument is that with less access to more effective weapons people will be less capable of committing large scale violence. You're unlikely to stop violence between people, but people armed with more effective weapons are capable of harming more people in a shorter time. Considering some portion of violent criminals (like mass shooters) often have little to no criminal record prior to committing that crime, asking if criminals will obey the law misses the point. Further, the more guns in circulation, the easier they are to acquire via the black market or through theft.

The guns usually in question weren't particularly popular until there were attempts to ban them.
BTW: Registration is a vehicle for confiscation.


It certainly has the potential to be used that way, but I wouldn't support confiscation. I'm only a 'gun grabber' by the standards of people and entities who hold similar positions to you, compared to most of my countrymen I'm closer to a gun nut - I favour loosening some restrictions here, but not to the point the US is liberal towards gun ownership.

BTW: I'm familiar with the Streisand effect.

Raptor wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The best argument against that logic is that the genie is already out of the bottle and personally I can't and don't support the idea of rounding up privately owned weapons. This would mean all the guns that hardline gun control advocates are worried about would remain out there with the same possibility of being used by formerly law abiding citizens, or to end up on the black market.

Hard line gun control advocates want to ban ALL guns, they just go after the scary looking ones first.


Good thing I'm not one of them. :wink:
Raptor wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Of course, if more effective weapons don't allow one to commit worse acts of violence, why are we restricting the right to own BMGs, RPG-7s, etc? I mean, if the main concern is fighting tyrannical government, why restrict the right to own the sort of weapons one would need to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Wasn't my idea to restrict them...


So basically you're admitting you're a utopian idealist? Understood, I know how seriously to take further discussions on this matter with you (when discussing the real world, it might be fun to discuss it from the utopian position you occupy). Regardless of what might be ideal in your imagination, we're considering what's actually plausible and relevant in the real world. Consensus is that the US constitution allows for some restrictions on what arms a private citizen may possess, the only debate is over how to define those restrictions. Feel free to have a philosophical navel gaze on what's ideal in utopia somewhere where that topic is relevant.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

13 Oct 2017, 4:54 pm

We are supposed to have any arms military can have. So rifles, hand gel anti tank rockets, tanks, artillery etc. actually quite a lot of rich people own those already and also fighter jets, attack helicopters. In the revolution war, most the artillery, cannons and rifles muskets were supplie by private groups. Private citizens were way better armed then the continental or even British troops(pre war) those rich enough even had ships with cannons. Before you go there nukes are not something soldiers have access to.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 Oct 2017, 5:34 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Consensus is that the US constitution allows for some restrictions on what arms a private citizen may possess...

What consensus? I have never heard of that and I believe it is only today's government that might have any such alleged consensus.

sly279 wrote:
We are supposed to have any arms military can have... In the revolution war, most the artillery, cannons and rifles muskets were supplied by private groups. Private citizens were way better armed then the continental or even British troops (pre-war)...

I think it is fine that some things are available only to the actual military, but then the military should be restricted from ever turning against citizens for any reason whatsoever.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 Oct 2017, 9:41 pm

leejosepho wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Consensus is that the US constitution allows for some restrictions on what arms a private citizen may possess...

What consensus? I have never heard of that and I believe it is only today's government that might have any such alleged consensus.


Have the courts consistently allowed for restrictions?


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

13 Oct 2017, 11:39 pm

leejosepho wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Consensus is that the US constitution allows for some restrictions on what arms a private citizen may possess...

What consensus? I have never heard of that and I believe it is only today's government that might have any such alleged consensus.

sly279 wrote:
We are supposed to have any arms military can have... In the revolution war, most the artillery, cannons and rifles muskets were supplied by private groups. Private citizens were way better armed then the continental or even British troops (pre-war)...

I think it is fine that some things are available only to the actual military, but then the military should be restricted from ever turning against citizens for any reason whatsoever.

Words and laws don’t stop actions. The government does lots of thinks it can’t by law but they don’t care. The Tripp’s already swear an oath to protect the constitution and not hurt the people but they many don’t care about that.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

13 Oct 2017, 11:43 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Consensus is that the US constitution allows for some restrictions on what arms a private citizen may possess...

What consensus? I have never heard of that and I believe it is only today's government that might have any such alleged consensus.


Have the courts consistently allowed for restrictions?


No as the courts shift political sides every so often. They ruled in the 1900s that civilians should have access to any weapons that military infantry have. Ruling change who knows in coming years the courts might roll back on previous restrictions and rule them unconstitutional. Especially if trump puts in a few more republican judges. The liberal judges as is refuse to hear gun cases cause they know the majority is pro gun now. If they don’t hear them then the 5 right leaning judges can’t rule in favor of gun rights.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Oct 2017, 12:14 am

Of course criminals will use guns if they have access to them. If they have access to them. Here in Australia your average petty criminal doesn't care about gun control laws. He's just love to buy a gun but in a country that doesn't have hundreds of millions of guns, they're just not available to the average petty criminal.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

14 Oct 2017, 12:18 am

There’s still millions of guns in Australia for criminals to steal. Plus they smuggle more into the country



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Oct 2017, 1:05 am

Then why do so few people get shot in Australia?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Marknis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,960
Location: The Vile Belt

14 Oct 2017, 1:41 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Then why do so few people get shot in Australia?


Your rednecks (bogans) are definitely nowhere near as violent and backwards as the ones we have here. That's partly why. I have a friend from Taree who lives about three hours from me and she can attest to that.

Australian culture, from what I've read about, is also more laid back and care free while Americans tend to work themselves to death and take life too seriously. Even rednecks still think if you aren't dying on the job, you aren't working hard enough and that sex is just a "pump and dump" experience.



Raleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2014
Age: 124
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,178
Location: Out of my mind

14 Oct 2017, 1:46 am

^ There's plenty of violence, but the absence of guns means less people die from it.


_________________
It's like I'm sleepwalking


Marknis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,960
Location: The Vile Belt

14 Oct 2017, 1:50 am

Raleigh wrote:
^ There's plenty of violence, but the absence of guns means less people die from it.


I don't deny that. I'd just feel safer around other nation's equivalents of rednecks instead of the ones around me. Rednecks here harm non-human animals just for fun and hate anyone not like themselves.



Raleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2014
Age: 124
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,178
Location: Out of my mind

14 Oct 2017, 2:10 am

^ You could always move to Taree.


_________________
It's like I'm sleepwalking


traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,964

14 Oct 2017, 2:52 am

Is it like the idea that people in positions of power are completely trustworthy?



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

14 Oct 2017, 3:34 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Then why do so few people get shot in Australia?

Far less people, more spread it, mostly the same culture and race. Etc

Amecixan is heavily populated of mix cultures, races and gangs.
The Pacific Northwest for example is lowly populated, spread out and has few crime. The east coast and California are densely packed with huge populations of all kinds of cultures and have lots of crime. They also have lots of gun control. But it’s the densely packed people and gangs that cause violence to guns. So they avoid the actual problem cause it’s too hard to fix and do gun control so they look like they doing something for votes so they keep their job, keep getting bribes and making millions of dollars so they can keep living the rich life style. They aren’t rich cause they worked for. They get paid millions by companies and special interests groups to vote in their favor..

It’s funny the people calling trump a nazi and the next hitler who’s going round up millions of Mexicans and such are pushing to make it so only trump and his government forces have guns. :roll: let’s give the so called dictator all the guns and ,ale it so no one can fight back to stop him. If he really was the next hitler why would you want only him and his lackies romhave guns? One of the first thing hitler did was take guns away from Jews and non Pure blood Germans.