Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On August 30 2014 02:22 Karpfen wrote: The data was not cited saying the guns were purchased legally. He merely said that they were originally purchased legally. Originally as in someome who can legally buy one sells it illegally to someone else.
I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.
And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.
Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS
And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.
Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).
"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!
"Well they should of performed a background check"
"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"
"Well there should be"
"Let's ask the American people"
"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"
(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"
"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"
"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."
Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum
By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.
It's actually pretty simple.
How do background checks stop the straw purchaser? He has a clean record. He legally buys the gun. He sells it without doing the background check. Background checks do nothing to curb straw purchasing. In fact, background checks are the exact kind of thing straw purchasers are used to avoid.
On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote: I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.
Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.
Also, the coasts aren't anti-gun, urban areas are. States on the coast happen to have many urban areas, so it looks like the whole state is anti-gun, which is false. Look at New York. The only districts with constituents in favor of the SAFE Act are in New York City, and Albany. The state is much more than those two cities.
This seems unusually difficult for you to understand so I'll try one more time.
If the straw purchaser had to perform a background check on whoever he sells the gun to then he cant legally sell it to someone who doesnt pass. As it is now there is nothing illegal about buying a gun and selling it to someone who can not legally own one as long as you weren't suppose to do a background check and they didn't just tell you they can't.
So yeah straw purchasing is illegal, but not very practical to prove. If potential straw buyers had to do background checks they couldn't just play dumb and get away with it when they get caught.
Like I said, based on the shear percentage of guns that end up in criminal hands via straw purchasing, there are a few people making a living off it. It's not people doing it once or twice and then playing dumb. These people could easily be busted, just like how they bust people in California for selling medicinal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California, but a private citizen can't mass produce it. The people who make a living off of it leave lots of evidence, beyond a lack of a background check.
On August 31 2014 21:25 Thalandros wrote: And also alcohol in general is used for medical purposes. Guns have no usage in this world if nobody else used them, alcohol does. If we're talking about beverages only, I can agree to some point but it'll be harder to ban than guns ever will be
Guns protect the weak from the strong. They don't just protect from other guns. How do you propose you protect yourself from a thug with a knife or two thugs, or just one thug who's much larger than you, without a gun?
An alarm system doesn't actually help you. It doesn't stop a criminal at all. It's just an annoying sound, and they aren't even that hard to disable. Unless they're trained to be a guard, a dog isn't the answer either. They're easily distracted with food, and they typically don't realize intruders mean them harm. Dogs tend to think intruders are company.
I think you are still managing to miss the point. Even after hundreds of deals one still hasn't done anything illegal and playing dumb is an acceptable excuse.
Short of a 'sting op' where they have an agent intentionally disqualify themselves and still purchase the firearm there is little that can be actioned on.
Perhaps a visual aid would help....
Mind you no one in this video went to prison....
I'm saying its tough to play dumb when you clearly make a career out of it. You can try all you want, but you will not succeed.
On August 30 2014 02:22 Karpfen wrote: The data was not cited saying the guns were purchased legally. He merely said that they were originally purchased legally. Originally as in someome who can legally buy one sells it illegally to someone else.
I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.
And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.
Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS
And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.
Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).
"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!
"Well they should of performed a background check"
"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"
"Well there should be"
"Let's ask the American people"
"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"
(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"
"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"
"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."
Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum
By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.
It's actually pretty simple.
How do background checks stop the straw purchaser? He has a clean record. He legally buys the gun. He sells it without doing the background check. Background checks do nothing to curb straw purchasing. In fact, background checks are the exact kind of thing straw purchasers are used to avoid.
On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote: I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.
Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.
Also, the coasts aren't anti-gun, urban areas are. States on the coast happen to have many urban areas, so it looks like the whole state is anti-gun, which is false. Look at New York. The only districts with constituents in favor of the SAFE Act are in New York City, and Albany. The state is much more than those two cities.
This seems unusually difficult for you to understand so I'll try one more time.
If the straw purchaser had to perform a background check on whoever he sells the gun to then he cant legally sell it to someone who doesnt pass. As it is now there is nothing illegal about buying a gun and selling it to someone who can not legally own one as long as you weren't suppose to do a background check and they didn't just tell you they can't.
So yeah straw purchasing is illegal, but not very practical to prove. If potential straw buyers had to do background checks they couldn't just play dumb and get away with it when they get caught.
Like I said, based on the shear percentage of guns that end up in criminal hands via straw purchasing, there are a few people making a living off it. It's not people doing it once or twice and then playing dumb. These people could easily be busted, just like how they bust people in California for selling medicinal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California, but a private citizen can't mass produce it. The people who make a living off of it leave lots of evidence, beyond a lack of a background check.
On August 31 2014 21:25 Thalandros wrote: And also alcohol in general is used for medical purposes. Guns have no usage in this world if nobody else used them, alcohol does. If we're talking about beverages only, I can agree to some point but it'll be harder to ban than guns ever will be
Guns protect the weak from the strong. They don't just protect from other guns. How do you propose you protect yourself from a thug with a knife or two thugs, or just one thug who's much larger than you, without a gun?
An alarm system doesn't actually help you. It doesn't stop a criminal at all. It's just an annoying sound, and they aren't even that hard to disable. Unless they're trained to be a guard, a dog isn't the answer either. They're easily distracted with food, and they typically don't realize intruders mean them harm. Dogs tend to think intruders are company.
I think you are still managing to miss the point. Even after hundreds of deals one still hasn't done anything illegal and playing dumb is an acceptable excuse.
Short of a 'sting op' where they have an agent intentionally disqualify themselves and still purchase the firearm there is little that can be actioned on.
I'm saying its tough to play dumb when you clearly make a career out of it. You can try all you want, but you will not succeed.
At this point it seems like you are being intentionally dense. Did you bother to read/listen to how many of the 'dealers' were selling hundreds of guns without background checks? Or how many openly sold guns to people who TOLD THEM they could 'probably NOT' pass a background check?
Don't get me wrong I own several guns and go to gun shows all the time, but pretending like people don't make livings for decades selling weapons without background checks (commercial straw buying [which is completely legal]) is just denying reality.
On August 30 2014 02:41 Millitron wrote: [quote] I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.
And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.
Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS
And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.
Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).
"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!
"Well they should of performed a background check"
"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"
"Well there should be"
"Let's ask the American people"
"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"
(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"
"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"
"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."
Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum
By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.
It's actually pretty simple.
How do background checks stop the straw purchaser? He has a clean record. He legally buys the gun. He sells it without doing the background check. Background checks do nothing to curb straw purchasing. In fact, background checks are the exact kind of thing straw purchasers are used to avoid.
On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote: I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.
Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.
Also, the coasts aren't anti-gun, urban areas are. States on the coast happen to have many urban areas, so it looks like the whole state is anti-gun, which is false. Look at New York. The only districts with constituents in favor of the SAFE Act are in New York City, and Albany. The state is much more than those two cities.
This seems unusually difficult for you to understand so I'll try one more time.
If the straw purchaser had to perform a background check on whoever he sells the gun to then he cant legally sell it to someone who doesnt pass. As it is now there is nothing illegal about buying a gun and selling it to someone who can not legally own one as long as you weren't suppose to do a background check and they didn't just tell you they can't.
So yeah straw purchasing is illegal, but not very practical to prove. If potential straw buyers had to do background checks they couldn't just play dumb and get away with it when they get caught.
Like I said, based on the shear percentage of guns that end up in criminal hands via straw purchasing, there are a few people making a living off it. It's not people doing it once or twice and then playing dumb. These people could easily be busted, just like how they bust people in California for selling medicinal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California, but a private citizen can't mass produce it. The people who make a living off of it leave lots of evidence, beyond a lack of a background check.
On August 31 2014 21:25 Thalandros wrote: And also alcohol in general is used for medical purposes. Guns have no usage in this world if nobody else used them, alcohol does. If we're talking about beverages only, I can agree to some point but it'll be harder to ban than guns ever will be
Guns protect the weak from the strong. They don't just protect from other guns. How do you propose you protect yourself from a thug with a knife or two thugs, or just one thug who's much larger than you, without a gun?
An alarm system doesn't actually help you. It doesn't stop a criminal at all. It's just an annoying sound, and they aren't even that hard to disable. Unless they're trained to be a guard, a dog isn't the answer either. They're easily distracted with food, and they typically don't realize intruders mean them harm. Dogs tend to think intruders are company.
I think you are still managing to miss the point. Even after hundreds of deals one still hasn't done anything illegal and playing dumb is an acceptable excuse.
Short of a 'sting op' where they have an agent intentionally disqualify themselves and still purchase the firearm there is little that can be actioned on.
I'm saying its tough to play dumb when you clearly make a career out of it. You can try all you want, but you will not succeed.
At this point it seems like you are being intentionally dense. Did you bother to read/listen to how many of the 'dealers' were selling hundreds of guns without background checks? Or how many openly sold guns to people who TOLD THEM they could 'probably NOT' pass a background check?
Don't get me wrong I own several guns and go to gun shows all the time, but pretending like people don't make livings for decades selling weapons without background checks (commercial straw buying [which is completely legal]) is just denying reality.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html 8% of America's gun dealers sell the majority of the handguns used in crime. 27.7% of all guns used in crimes that were bought from FFL's were seized within 2 years. The ATF believes this quick "time-to-crime" is evidence that the FFL in question is in on it. They're aware a straw purchase is happening, but let it slide to make a little extra cash. Likewise, another ~20,000 guns are reported missing or stolen from FFL's. How many of these were really stolen, and not sold under the table?
The ATF seems to believe that the problem is corrupt FFL's. Not corrupt, unlicensed individuals.
Now, I think I have a good idea that might satisfy us both. Before I start, let me explain that the gun show loophole is a misnomer. Its not that the sales are normally illegal but for some reason they're legal at a gun show. Purchases like those shown in the video you posted would always be illegal, at a gun show or not. It makes me wonder why those on the sting in the video didn't wait outside and arrest everyone who went through with the sale anyways.
Now, on to my idea. How about the people running the gun show require a background check for entry? You don't have any privacy concerns, because the gun show can just require proof of a background check at the door. They don't even need to keep records of who does and doesn't have one. Just don't let anybody in who can't show proof of a background check. And like this it won't matter how corrupt the private sellers are, they don't have any illegal customers anymore. This doesn't exactly stop the corrupt FFL's my article mentioned, but I'm not sure what could beyond just more good old-fashioned police work.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
Driving a car after drinking is still illegal and if you are fine forbidding something that 99% of all people use without problems because of some dickheads you should expect some controversy. Especially considering that this kind of argument could be used to advocate the ban off almost everything.
But it's a pointless discussion anyway because it will never happen.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
That's why I don't understand why Cannabis is still banned in so many countries.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
That's why I don't understand why Cannabis is still banned in so many countries.
Because big business has lots of money to make if it stays banned. The War on Drugs needs lots of supplies, and the people who make money selling those supplies lobby hard. Gotta outfit all the drug task forces, gotta provide food, room, and board to all those new prisoners. Gotta hire lawyers.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right?
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right?
That's not what he said at all. He said Europeans don't care about responsibility because they're fine with the government not trusting them with guns, even if they happen to be model citizens. He doesn't like that Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the common man.
I personally think its silly to trust a government more than the common man. The government is elected by, and made up of common people, they aren't angels.
You are aware that most European nations do in fact allow them to own guns. It's a bit silly to equate the amaerican gun culture to and the danger and responsibilities involved to drinking. Afterall many fellow Americans are uncomfortable with glamorisation of gun culture in USA, it's a bit off to somehow write this peice of flamebait: "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility," as if gun laws are an insight to cultural attitudes to responsibility or lack of it. because all Amercans and all Europeans are of one gestalt hivemind.
On September 02 2014 08:23 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You are aware that most European nations do in fact allow them to own guns. It's a bit silly to equate the amaerican gun culture to and the danger and responsibilities involved to drinking. Afterall many fellow Americans are uncomfortable with glamorisation of gun culture in USA, it's a bit off to somehow write this peice of flamebait: "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility," as if gun laws are an insight to cultural attitudes to responsibility or lack of it. because all Amercans and all Europeans are of one gestalt hivemind.
They aren't a hivemind, but they seem pretty happy with the government being involved in their everyday lives constantly.
And to get guns in Europe, depending on the country, you have to abide by mountains of laws, and often cannot own certain types no matter how much paperwork you do. They may as well all be banned in places like the UK, you're limited so strictly in what you can and cannot own. European gun laws are like California's, only somehow even more strict and spanning a continent.
On September 02 2014 05:04 Incognoto wrote: Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
You know that the majority of cocaine users do it casually right? It's very possible to do casually. You don't know what you are talking about.
On September 02 2014 05:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On September 02 2014 05:04 Incognoto wrote:
On September 02 2014 03:44 Karpfen wrote:
On August 31 2014 22:36 Incognoto wrote:
On August 31 2014 07:50 Karpfen wrote:
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right?
That's not what he said at all. He said Europeans don't care about responsibility because they're fine with the government not trusting them with guns, even if they happen to be model citizens. He doesn't like that Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the common man.
I personally think its silly to trust a government more than the common man. The government is elected by, and made up of common people, they aren't angels.
The government is limited by the fact that it answers to the people in general.
What limits the common person?
Nothing.
The common person is an incredibly selfish, lazy, arrogant, irrational moron. Why should I trust some random person being allowed to have any kind of gun?
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
This kind of statement just makes you look like such a pathetic tool. American culture isn't about responsibility at all. I don't know what kind of ridiculous right-wing blogs you're reading, but you should try to broaden your horizons.
They aren't a hivemind, but they seem pretty happy with the government being involved in their everyday lives constantly.
And to get guns in Europe, depending on the country, you have to abide by mountains of laws, and often cannot own certain types no matter how much paperwork you do. They may as well all be banned in places like the UK, you're limited so strictly in what you can and cannot own. European gun laws are like California's, only somehow even more strict and spanning a continent.
Start listing all the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy in America that Europeans don't.
Guns aren't used to protect yourself. They're used to kill yourself.
You bring up that a battered woman might use a gun against her husband? Well the husband might use a gun against his wife. And then turn it on himself. Or maybe the battered woman might use it on herself.
Guns don't "equalize" things. They escalate violence to even worse situations.
Guns aren't used to protect yourself. They're used to kill yourself.
You bring up that a battered woman might use a gun against her husband? Well the husband might use a gun against his wife. And then turn it on himself. Or maybe the battered woman might use it on herself.
Guns don't "equalize" things. They escalate violence to even worse situations.
They equalize things from a video game/comic book perspective of the world. Which is where most Internet forum posters supporting gun laws.
ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem!
On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem!
Some people prefer to prevent hardships than punish those who fall into hardship. You are obviously not one of those people.
On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem!
What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police?
And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance?
Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position.
On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem!
What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police?
And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance?
Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position.
EPT
