Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, Jan 18, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]450545[/split]
The NRA biggest members are gun manufacturers and stores. Joining the group just means you will be funding their lobby group to push gun legislation for those groups.
It's not like they listen to their members and wage policy on the basis of majority opinion
It depends on the law. Laws do little to dissuade those intent on committing crimes. If person A wants to murder person B, then he will. If person A wants to murder person B with a gun, then he'll buy the gun. Murder is illegal as is, and there already is crime.
Laws historically has been very ineffective as a deterrent on those who already choose to disobey them. This is why gun further gun control will not work - anything they could do with the gun is already a much worse crime than obtaining the gun itself. If you were intent on committing a mass murder / rob a bank / mug some guy, would you really let a gun law get in your way?
As it stands, over 95% of crimes are committed with people who are illegally in possession of a firearm. If we enforced the laws already on the books, and did so effectively, there would already be very little gun crime. New gun laws would not change that, it would only hurt law abiding citizens even more.
The quote does not in itself support the idea that gun owners support further restrictions. The current gun laws on the book for the most part already include those bulletpoints. Current laws, if they were already properly enforced, would already keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If current laws are so poorly enforced, why would passing new laws do a damn thing?
Some gun laws are reasonable. Those laws already exist.
To be fair, the same people who advocate enforcing existing laws, do everything they can to make it so they aren't enforced.
There's so much hypocrisy on this issue...
So, again, why have laws at all? If laws don't stop people from committing crimes, what's the point? If the threat of jail time doesn't prevent the vast majority of the population from driving while drunk, then it shouldn't be illegal. There's no point in having a police force, speed limits, voter registration laws, or laws of any kind. This is the logic you and others are using to oppose new gun laws. You've also used the term "law abiding gun owners". Wouldn't that term alone mean that laws do, in fact, have some effect on whether or not a person commits a crime?
I was just watching a Daily Show where Stewart was talking about the laws that severely restrict the ATF's ability to do anything. Laws that got on the books by way of an amendment to an unrelated spending bill written by the same Representative who was recently saying that the ATF in on the job to track illegal firearms. There's your hypocrite!
no one said that laws have no effect on all people... i said laws have little effect on those who desire to break it.
with a gun law, it's not going to stop someone who wants to murder another... he/she will get a knife/bat/screwdriver/etc., or even buy a firearm through the black market.
the only way you can ensure that no one will ever murder someone with any object, is to detain all people indefinitely, watching them constantly, or have a police officer follow each person wherever they go, at all hours of the day... unfortunately, now you have a police state.
laws are good, but it doesn't promise that everyone will follow them... everyone has the choice to obey them or not. the answer, then, does not come from the law itself, but from the consequence of breaking the law, and the enforcing of such consequence... even then, though, you will find people who dont care about their life, or the lives of others... there are individuals out there who just want to watch the world burn, as Alfred said in The Dark Knight
so, why not teach and train those, who are not law-breaking individuals, so that they can defend themselves?
no law is perfect, of course... and there are no perfect people in the world either...
this is the world we live in.
people commit evil acts in this world. the best thing you can do is to make sovereign laws in the land, and enforce these laws responsibly and justly.
You are misrepresenting my argument entirely. I never said we don't need laws - they serve a purpose. They set boundaries of acceptable behavior and the framework to punish those who go against that.
Murder is illegal because it results in the wrongful killing of another human being. Drunk driving is illegal because it puts lives in danger. How does me having an AR15 with 30 round magazines in my gun safe affect you, again?
You know, I came across that website a while ago looking for some gun statistics. But I didn't know how valid the website is. Can anyone vouch for the credibility of their information?
But we can all agree that guns in the hands of the wrong people is bad...so why not make it harder for the wrong people to get guns?
If there were laws in place and enforce that prevented James Holmes from getting his hands on weapons would he have known how to get it on the black market?
If a crazy person wants to shoot up a school he should not be able to walk into a gun store or a Walmart and walk out with not so much as a sideways glance.
It's not about taking away guns or infringing on anyone's rights...it's about making sure someone isn't gonna try to pull a 'Bane' at the screening of Man of Steel or shoot up another school.
Well done, New York. Nothing is better at proving you're being completely reactionary and just trying to score political points while making yourselves feel better with a quick fix than these kinds of ****ups in a rushed law.
Going after illegal black market guns?! Well that's just crazy talk.
It's like you want gun crime in the country to drop by 90% or something! And thereby causing the need for legal guns used for self-defense to drop as well...
I see your endgame now...
well I am not one of those fandangled smart politicals or nothing
No one wants guns in the hands of people that would use them to hurt people except in cases of self defense, but "Laws" won't help. There are already "laws" against hurting people. People intent on hurting others are going to find ways in doing so. What would need to happen is people should be allowed to defend themselves and those that they love without scrutiny. When seconds really matter between life and death, remember the the police are only minutes away.
Again with the "laws do nothing" argument. Look, while the law itself may do nothing, the threat of the consequences for breaking it, for the most part, does. Maybe you should change your argument to, "laws do nothing, unless aggressively enforced." That would be more accurate.
There are already way too many guns that will be "banned" in legal circulation to really do anything. Sure, it'll keep new guns from being purchased, but in order to see a real change, you'd have to confiscate the millions of guns banned that are legally owned. This is why the 94 AWB did nothing to prevent Columbine and other firearm related crimes. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything; I'm just making the observation that its a bandaid on a severed limb. And politicians are patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
What's going to happen when another massacre happens with a legally owned weapon that is banned from new sales? Or with a weapon whose popularity takes the place of the banned AR? They'll just continue to ban and ban and ban in illogical, reactionary ways without solving the problem. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Well like you say, a law by itself is never meant to actually eliminate a problem, merely open that problem up to prosecution.
I always use the rape example. Rape is a great example because the biggest problem with rape is it usually (anywhere between 80-90% of the time) goes unreported, especially in men due to social stigma, but also in women because much of the time the rapist may have been someone they liked but not in that way. So it's a very real and unique crime that's very hard to prosecute or even prove. Also, due to our restrictions on invading personal privacy it's pretty hard to determine whether a rape actually occurred or whether it's a lie, or whether the circumstances seem to indicate rape (back to my point about the rapist usually being a friend. Juries struggle with figuring how someone who the defendant spent a lot of time around isn't someone she would've consensually slept with). Yet most people would not want to live in a society whose Government condoned rape and didn't want legal officials to be able to prosecute or make arrests in relation to sexually based offenses.
It's probably been discussed here already, but does anyone else find the new NRA line of attack by going after Obama's daughters disturbing? It is crap like that that only marginalizes this fanatical position even further.
Laws only change the behavior of people that are willing to abide by them. They do nothing to the people that would undermine them.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. " -Plato
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." - Ben Franklin
I think that instead of prohibiting self defense measures, one needs to look at the cause of the violence in the first place.
Yes, simply because by their association with the president, there'd be more people making threats against them. They'd be in more danger than civilian children or people in a movie theatre.
Roach, do you mean that you'd just want stringent background checks and psychiatric evaluations prior to gun purchase? I can get on board with that; its silly restrictions on ammunitions and certain models I can't abide.
No, they absolutely do. They enable the rest of society, i.e. the abiding citizens, to prosecute them for it. Laws have very little to do with prevention. That's not the aim of a law.
First of all "good" and "bad people" are black and white terms. There are no such thing. Someone who abides the law, or abides what he thinks is law, is not a criminal until he is caught and prosecuted. It's not discussed in court how nice of a guy you are. You may think being a "good person" means a lot, but I can tell you that's the philosophy of a spoiled brat if I ever heard it. Laws have very little to do with the overall morality of a person (which many would argue is irrelevant anyways) and everything to do with their actions. It's about providing structure, and enabling law enforcement. It's not some list of commandments handed down from a God. Also laws change in response to people who challenge those laws, so it's never been about legislating the "good" from the "bad". Some bad things, like exposing your children to too much television, or feeding them fatty foods isn't outlawed because other laws preclude the Government from actually being able to enforce such a restriction.
Also let's talk about Plato.
Plato lived in a country which had no laws about being a pederast, something that Plato and most of his contemporaries were. There's definitely something more than a little wrong about diddling little boys privates, anally raping them and molesting them while teaching them philosophy. So it certainly seemed like without those laws Plato saw fit to put his pleasure over the pain he most assuredly was causing those young children.
Context? Otherwise this seems to be a very irrelevant quote.
Why do you think countries like Somalia and others which have A) no taxes B) no laws (or little law enforcement) C) no [strong] central Government and D) unlimited access to self-defense weapons like guns descend into madness? You claim it's cause they violate NAP. No sh** Sherlock, they are being aggressive. But that's not what they are fighting over. They are fighting over land, resources and money, and sometimes religion. There is no system in place to direct their totally free market (which is actually fairly complex in Somalia), therefore the resources become wrapped up in a free for all. That's what happens when there is no structure.
Yes, OP, whatever you say. Just because the culture at the time Plato was Philosophizing had different morals than what we have today concerning the treatment of children, it doesn't mean that we must throw away everything he said or wrote. We can use that argument for you as well, just because someone somewhere in your country hurt another person, that automatically invalidates your argument or anything you have to day. Your Logic again, escapes whatever you were trying to say.