|
On December 08 2007 15:59 Mayson wrote:
Typical Canadian.
You, favoring gun control, support:
- rape
- murder
- robbery
- assault
to go unchecked. You're a traitor to the human race.
Typical pro-gun supporter. Your logic fails, so you start attacking me personally.
Last time I checked, violent crime rate in Canada is lower than in the US. So the "typical Canadian" would in fact go against everything you accused me of being.
|
On December 08 2007 15:58 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote:
So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again? Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. I find myself making similar arguments on immigration policy. It seems when current laws aren't enforced, there is a component of society which seeks to patch things up by creating more laws, regardless the fact that the problem is enforcement, not codification. I'm not trying to aligns Mayson's views to mine in regards to immigration; the rationale is similar, though. For the record, I do agree with you.
It's really a shame people don't understand simple logic.
Take anything. Let's take teddy bears.
Flood the market with teddy bears. Everyone buys them; lots of people own them, including criminals. Now, ban them. Citizens don't want to give them up, but they don't want to become a criminal, so they give in. The criminals don't care, haven't cared, and don't give them up.
Now the only people with teddy bears are the criminals.
Cocaine, heroine, marijuana, etc., are all illegal. Does the status of something being illegal make any difference? No. Why? Something must be enforced for it to have an impact.
Oh, and I admit I was wrong in one area. Banning guns does help:
Too bad it helps the fucking criminals.
|
On December 08 2007 15:48 Servolisk wrote:Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected. Well, then maybe the fact that there are gun laws being broken on a daily basis will convince you.
I make no distinction between gun laws now and proposed gun laws.
The laws we have aren't being followed. What makes you think future laws will be?
What makes you think banning guns, disarming citizens, will stop criminals?
Criminals don't follow laws. Making more laws (that they aren't going to follow anyway) won't change that.
|
|
|
On December 08 2007 16:04 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:58 HeadBangaa wrote:On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote:
So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again? Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. And ignoring that a large portion of breaking the law is enabled by people who follow the law. In this case the criminals are largely dependent on the supply intended for legal use.
If I extrapolate from your logic, I can claim that alcohol prohibition should have been a successful venture: no domestic dealers equals no law-abiding citizens to help with the supply, right...?
Economic forces are stronger than bureaucratic impositions. If the market exists, the suppliers will always be present.
|
On December 08 2007 16:07 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:48 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:44 Mayson wrote:
- not affect criminals Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected. Well, then maybe the fact that there are gun laws being broken on a daily basis will convince you. I make no distinction between gun laws now and proposed gun laws. The laws we have aren't being followed. What makes you think future laws will be? What makes you think banning guns, disarming citizens, will stop criminals? Criminals don't follow laws. Making more laws (that they aren't going to follow anyway) won't change that.
It's quite simple, and I already gave some examples.
If a large chunk of these criminals rely on corrupt dealers, they won't be able to if there are ZERO dealers due to guns being completely illegal.
The illegal activity now is highly dependent on the guns intended for legal use.
|
What analogy? You mean the one that's indisputable because it's correct?
Do you honestly not understand that criminals don't follow the laws? Do you understand what makes someone a criminal?
Do you even know what a fucking law is? Do you understand a law, by itself, does nothing at all? Why do you think we have law enforcement?
|
On December 08 2007 16:11 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 16:07 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:48 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:44 Mayson wrote:
- not affect criminals Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected. Well, then maybe the fact that there are gun laws being broken on a daily basis will convince you. I make no distinction between gun laws now and proposed gun laws. The laws we have aren't being followed. What makes you think future laws will be? What makes you think banning guns, disarming citizens, will stop criminals? Criminals don't follow laws. Making more laws (that they aren't going to follow anyway) won't change that. It's quite simple, and I already gave some examples. If a large chunk of these criminals rely on corrupt dealers, they won't be able to if there are ZERO dealers due to guns being completely illegal. The illegal activity now is highly dependent on the guns intended for legal use. We both agree that FFLs selling to criminals is criminal activity, and I bet we'd both agree that the laws should be enforced.
But instead of enforcing the laws, you'd much rather make a completely new law that's a blanket solution.
Instead of attacking the source of the problem, which is the flow of firearms to criminals, you'd rather just ban everything.
Yeah, that makes lots of sense.
/thumbs up
|
On December 08 2007 16:10 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 16:04 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:58 HeadBangaa wrote:On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote:
So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again? Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. And ignoring that a large portion of breaking the law is enabled by people who follow the law. In this case the criminals are largely dependent on the supply intended for legal use. If I extrapolate from your logic, I can claim that alcohol prohibition should have been a successful venture: no domestic dealers equals no law-abiding citizens to help with the supply, right...? Economic forces are stronger than bureaucratic impositions. If the market exists, the suppliers will always be present.
People could make their own alcohol a lot easier than they would be able to make their own guns (and without being noticed).
Modern guns are not going to be as easy to supply as guns and alcohol, which do not require as much resources to produce, and are more difficult to traffic.
|
Mayson, ou have lost all credibility the moment you started ignoring valid arguments from other posters and started talking like a troll.
|
On December 08 2007 16:11 Mayson wrote:
What analogy? You mean the one that's indisputable because it's correct?
Do you honestly not understand that criminals don't follow the laws? Do you understand what makes someone a criminal?
Do you even know what a fucking law is? Do you understand a law, by itself, does nothing at all? Why do you think we have law enforcement?
Everyone understands that, for the love of <insert deity of choice>.
You have said that it would affect the people who follow laws. It is those people, rather than the law, that will affect the criminals, since in this particular case they rely on them for 85-90% of gun supply.
|
That's funny--for 22 pages I've been using logic, statistically-significant research findings from people with the resources to do controlled evaluations, and those statements were ignored.
The moment I point out the lack of intelligence in your posts, I'm a "troll."
How convenient.
For the record, you never had any credibility.
|
If it is not an impossibility for a teenager to acquire a gun, change is needed.
Mayson is a troll. How he's gotten so much attention is beyond me.
|
On December 08 2007 16:20 Mayson wrote:
That's funny--for 22 pages I've been using logic, statistically-significant research findings from people with the resources to do controlled evaluations, and those statements were ignored.
The moment I point out the lack of intelligence in your posts, I'm a "troll."
How convenient.
For the record, you never had any credibility.
Right. It's quite obvious you are pretending not to see the glaring weakness others have brought up around 10 times now. Good night.
|
On December 08 2007 16:20 MYM.Testie wrote:
If it is not an impossibility for a teenager to acquire a gun, change is needed.
Mayson is a troll. How he's gotten so much attention is beyond me.
As sad as it is, Mayson speaks for people like HeadBangaa, so we give him attention for the sake of our less fortunate members, troll or not.
|
On December 08 2007 16:18 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 16:11 Mayson wrote:
What analogy? You mean the one that's indisputable because it's correct?
Do you honestly not understand that criminals don't follow the laws? Do you understand what makes someone a criminal?
Do you even know what a fucking law is? Do you understand a law, by itself, does nothing at all? Why do you think we have law enforcement? Everyone understands that, for the love of <insert deity of choice>. You have said that it would affect the people who follow laws. It is those people, rather than the law, that will affect the criminals, since in this particular case they rely on them for 85-90% of gun supply. I see the point you're making. If nobody ever had any guns, criminals couldn't steal them from you. If FFLs didn't exist, the minority of whom are corrupt couldn't sell them to criminals.
Then again, how am I supposed to protect myself? If nobody has any guns to be stolen, I can't defend myself when my life is threatened by those who find ways around the laws.My magical "gun-free zone" aura will protect me.
The difference between you and me is just that you're willing to lie down, curl up into a fetal position, and give up your rights. I'm not a coward. I refuse to accept that in order to affect crime, I have to give up my rights as a human being, and as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.
That's the most backwards logic with regards to fighting crime that I've ever heard.
Why not enforce the laws instead of making new ones targeting those who perpetually do not follow them in the first place?
|
Production of booze is alot simpler than production of firearms there is no hidden factory making guns for criminals. It wouldn't be so easy for criminals to get guns if there wasn't a big market for legal guns. The legal market is where the bulk of the illegal guns is comming from. Simple logicand simple economics. Except for extreme cases like the AK47. I can't imagine how that got in the USA.
|
For a troll, I sure go through a hell of a lot of time finding reliable, valid sources to cite.
|
Lacking a ignore feature on this forum, I'll use the old fashioned method.
|
mayson there's no way in hell i trust the general population with guns.
guns come in handy when some guys trying to rape you, yes, they come in handy for overthrowing a fascist government, yes
but at the same token, the general population is incredibly retarded. i don't want some ignorant redneck waving a pistol on my face because i stole his parking spot or something.
in order to support the general population packing heat there would have to be a way to verify who's going to use his weapon responsibly. and that's impossible to do, just think about how many police officers whip out their pistols too fast already, and they have professional training and are supposedly given background checks.
if the police are trigger happy just imagine the mentaility behind your average citizen, there's no way in hell i trust the average citizen having guns.
so again, yeah it's nice to be able to defend yourself in the direst of situations, on the other hand it isn't nice when the general population are all a bunch of armed retarded baboons waving pistols at each other.
i think a compromise is to let a household have 1 small gun per household (conditional upon having a clean background and record) for self defense against intruders. taking that weapon outside the home should be illegal though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.snubnose.info/images/AnotherTragicSuccesforGunFreeZones_D175/feelsafe_thumb1.jpg)
