|
On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/
(Quote is from the answers.)
|
You don't seem to understand that guns are not the only way you can defend against criminals.
On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:
Making cocaine illegal does not stop the flow of cocaine to the streets of the US. Enforcing the law that makes cocaine illegal produces results.
Replace "cocaine" by "firearms" and you have exactly what every pro gun-control person wants.
|
On December 08 2007 15:25 qgart wrote:
You don't seem to understand that guns are not the only way you can defend against criminals. Next time I'm confronted by a dangerous criminal seeking to kill me, I'll use my words.
On December 08 2007 15:25 qgart wrote:
Replace "cocaine" by "firearms" and you have exactly what every pro gun-control person wants. Not really, considering gun control activists don't want guns around at all. They have no intention of enforcing laws; they just want them gone.
|
On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:
That's a prime example of the failed logic.
1. There are already many firearms in the hands of criminals, and available on the black market, and through corrupt FFLs, as you kindly pointed out to me. (Thanks again--that's a great source.)
2. Banning the legal sale of firearms completely would stop the illegal flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals. It also stops the legal flow of firearms to law-abiding citizens, who have never been the problem in the first place.
What happens as a result of these two things is this: a hypothetical ban on guns deprives the law-abiding, those characterized by not being the problem in this issue, of the right to self-preservation and the protection of one's property, while the criminals are still armed.
You have not explained why stopping the major source of illegal gun activity would not SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the amount of guns in the hands of criminals.
Guns already in the hands of criminals would not be expected to provide the same access of guns to criminals.
And if these criminals do commit crimes with their guns, they will be caught, and over time the availability of guns to criminals will be even further lessened, without a significant way of replenishing dealers.
So if not gun control, then what? How about instead of making more laws until we find the right one, we allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to enforce laws? Why doesn't the ATF begin doing random checks on FFLs themselves?
Making cocaine illegal does not stop the flow of cocaine to the streets of the US. Enforcing the law that makes cocaine illegal produces results.
Cut off the head, the body dies.
I'm sure all anti-gun people here would be fine with that, if not that alone.
|
On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page. Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/(Quote is from the answers.)
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
|
On December 08 2007 15:31 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:25 qgart wrote:
You don't seem to understand that guns are not the only way you can defend against criminals. Next time I'm confronted by a dangerous criminal seeking to kill me, I'll use my words. Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:25 qgart wrote:
Replace "cocaine" by "firearms" and you have exactly what every pro gun-control person wants. Not really, considering gun control activists don't want guns around at all. They have no intention of enforcing laws; they just want them gone.
Yes, I'm sure that tasers and pepper spray are completely ineffective against criminals. Oh... wait
Gun control activists are usually "law-abiding" citizens. As you said previously, it is not "law-abiding" citizens' job to enforce laws.
Oh and I'm sure that it is "law-abiding" citizens who enforce those laws on cocaine?
|
United States24496 Posts
On December 08 2007 15:38 qgart wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that tasers and pepper spray are completely ineffective against criminals. Oh... wait
If you try that vs a gunman, let us know how that works out. This debate will be over ONE WAY OR THE OTHER :D
|
Mayson you are looking at this issue in a very black and white point of view.
There are no criminals and law-abiding citizens.
There are citizens and then there are deviants from society.
You see people are not born criminals, realize that most people are law-abiding citizens. This kid was a law-abiding citizen as far as I know, he committed no crimes before this shooting. So you might want to reconsider your thinking. Why not have police officers in the mall like we have here in New York. If something happens you don't rely on some random douche bag to try to play superman and save us all. There are cops for that. Might as well cut down on officers and increase legal purchasing of guns.
We are sadly, frightened little animals. It takes a trained person to shoot someone without hesitating. It takes a trained person to not shoot the wrong person ( assuming there are more than 2 people holding guns). It also takes a trained person to save lives instead of killing more in the process.
You probably think that this is the responsibility of the individual, and I agree with you. It just seems that you haven't really come up with any sort of solution besides (give guns to more people and let god sort them out)
If you want mandatory military service for 1-2 years, yeah I agree with you. It would be pretty cool to have trained men and women who can defend themselves. It works for many countries with mandatory military service (they teach you how to control yourself and how to act in violent situations) and so far nobody complains of loose government-trained-killers roaming the streets.
People should realize that it's not just being a contrarian to a failed policy ( brady campaign) but you also have to come up with a solution as well.
|
I'm glad we've found some common ground.
Let me try to elaborate on my point of view:
I want to reduce the flow of firearms to criminals. I want to reduce the amount of crime committed--period--firearms involved or otherwise.
However, I will never support any legislation that infringes upon my right to self-preservation.
For example: a complete ban on the sale of firearms would:
- not allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, or engage in sporting and recreational purposes
- not affect criminals, as criminals, by definition, act outside of, and in defiance of the laws
So a ban on guns would simply disarm the law-abiding citizens, leaving them open for criminals to do whatever.
Many of the laws proposed by gun control activists are dual-edged swords; they have a dual agenda:
1. Reduce crime
2. Reduce firearms availability to anyone at all
That's not okay.
|
On December 08 2007 15:34 qgart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page. Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/(Quote is from the answers.) Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically. If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding.
How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it.
Let me be simple:
BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS
BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS
|
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.
|
On December 08 2007 15:46 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:34 qgart wrote:On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page. Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/(Quote is from the answers.) Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically. If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding. How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it. Let me be simple: BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS
Yeah and omit the obvious
BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO
You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere.
|
On December 08 2007 15:50 qgart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:46 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:34 qgart wrote:On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page. Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/(Quote is from the answers.) Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically. If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding. How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it. Let me be simple: BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS Yeah and omit the obvious BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere.
You're wrong buddy, people who want to hurt you and eat your babies will always find ways to get illegal guns.
Your thinking could work if you banned every single gun except those possessed by law enforcing agents. So that is basically stopping smuggling of all guns.
Prohibition = failed
War on Drugs = failed
War on Guns = most likely to fail
|
And since you obviously suffer from selective hearing problems let me, for the 19th time, respond to your law-abiding citizens needing to defend themselves stuff:
Do you agree that if a "law-abiding" citizens successfully defends against a violent crime, then he/she would not figure among the "murdered" "raped" or "robbed" when the stats are compiled? If so, the violent crime rates should be much lower in areas where ppl are allowed to carry firearms. Your own stats showed that this was not the case.
I didn't say that citizens who own guns have to fight crime. However, if you successfully defend yourself against a criminal, can we say that you have effectively contributed in the decrease of crime rate in the area you live? But then again, you showed yourself that letting ppl own guns does not decrease crime rate.
|
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.
|
Edit: Stupid comment removed for...stupidity.
|
On December 08 2007 15:56 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:50 qgart wrote:On December 08 2007 15:46 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:34 qgart wrote:On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page. Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/(Quote is from the answers.) Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically. If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding. How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it. Let me be simple: BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS Yeah and omit the obvious BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere. You're wrong buddy, people who want to hurt you and eat your babies will always find ways to get illegal guns.
But not all criminals would be able to, and there would be a lot less criminals armed with guns.
Your thinking could work if you banned every single gun except those possessed by law enforcing agents. So that is basically stopping smuggling of all guns.
Prohibition = failed
War on Drugs = failed
War on Guns = most likely to fail
Most of the smuggling of guns apparently stems from legal sources within the US.
|
On December 08 2007 15:56 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 15:50 qgart wrote:On December 08 2007 15:46 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:34 qgart wrote:On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 15:13 Servolisk wrote:On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote:
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page. Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/quiz/(Quote is from the answers.) Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically. If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding. How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it. Let me be simple: BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS Yeah and omit the obvious BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere. You're wrong buddy, people who want to hurt you and eat your babies will always find ways to get illegal guns. Your thinking could work if you banned every single gun except those possessed by law enforcing agents. So that is basically stopping smuggling of all guns. Prohibition = failed War on Drugs = failed War on Guns = most likely to fail
War on Drugs failed because you can easily smuggle them through the air and even more easily on the ground.
Smuggling guns through the air... forget about it.
Smuggling guns with trucks... plausible, but then again, you'd have to smuggle a LOT of them in order for your business to become lucrative.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
Troll, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
