Question for gun grabbing liberals

Old Today, 06:11 PM
Remove user from ignore list
indisputable
This message is hidden because indisputable is on your ignore list.



I know I agree with that.
 
Unread Today, 06:59 PM
Remove user from ignore list
indisputable
This message is hidden because indisputable is on your ignore list.


You seem unusually legible today.
 
Unread Today, 08:41 PM
Remove user from gay list
Watermark
This message is hidden because Watermark is seriously fucked in the head
 
Diuretic said:
My defence of gun control laws has nothing to do with crime. It has everything to do with reducing harm to owners/users and non-owners/users alike. And of course I have to argue a link between gun control laws and reduction of harm, otherwise there'd be no point in having gun control laws would there?
Click to expand...
Maybe YOUR argument has nothing to do with crime. But the standard argument for gun control in the United States is in response to crime levels. This is especially true when a high profile crime is perpetrated using a gun. The entire Brady bill fiasco was in reaction to the attempted assassination of Reagan, and the injuries sustained by Brady.

Every time a high profile crime is committed with a gun, the gun control advocates and anti-gun liberals (there is a distinction) come screebling out of the woodwork screaming for strict gun control laws to "prevent" future crimes. The problem is the laws proposed invariably would have done nothing to prevent the "poster-crime" that started the clamor for more gun control. If they will not prevent the reason the law is being called for, why call for the law?

And you can ARGUE a link between gun control and "reduction of harm" as you put it. But I doubt you have the data to show that any measurable "reduction in harm" can, in actuality, be attributed to gun control laws.
 
Diuretic said:
Why would anyone come by and demand a lawfully registered gun owned by a law-abiding, licensed citizen?
Click to expand...

It happens in every country that has banned private ownership of firearms. It happened in Nazi Germany. First, there was registration, then there was confiscation. Once they know where and who has the guns, it becomes easy to collect them.

Diuretic said:
Removing guns from criminals isn't impossible. Police and law enforcement agencies (eg ATF in the US) do it all the time.
Click to expand...

It happens sometimes, but not all the time. The purpose of Gun Control is sold to the public as some form of citizen protection from the criminal element. The only way that firearms are collected from criminals is after they have committed a crime and have been caught. Gun confiscation gives the criminal the knowledge that there is little chance that there is a gun in the the house they have targeted.
 
Diuretic said:
Gun control isn't about disarming criminals. Criminals who use firearms as part of their offending are charged appropriately and, if convicted, are sentenced according to their actions. It's usually the case that firearms seized as evidence are then forfeited. Gun controls laws on the other hand apply to all citizens and are intended to regulate the sale, use and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

That is exactly right, gun control is not about disarming criminals, it is about disarming law abiding citizens. They are the only ones that would comply with any gun control law.
 
Good Luck said:
Maybe YOUR argument has nothing to do with crime. But the standard argument for gun control in the United States is in response to crime levels. This is especially true when a high profile crime is perpetrated using a gun. The entire Brady bill fiasco was in reaction to the attempted assassination of Reagan, and the injuries sustained by Brady.

Every time a high profile crime is committed with a gun, the gun control advocates and anti-gun liberals (there is a distinction) come screebling out of the woodwork screaming for strict gun control laws to "prevent" future crimes. The problem is the laws proposed invariably would have done nothing to prevent the "poster-crime" that started the clamor for more gun control. If they will not prevent the reason the law is being called for, why call for the law?

And you can ARGUE a link between gun control and "reduction of harm" as you put it. But I doubt you have the data to show that any measurable "reduction in harm" can, in actuality, be attributed to gun control laws.
Click to expand...

I can prove it on an intuitive basis. If guns are restricted to those who are capable and responsible then harm will be reduced. If guns are allowed to be owned by anyone who isn't a convicted criminal and no other requirements are in place then the harm will not be reduced or minimised.
 
PorterM said:
It happens in every country that has banned private ownership of firearms. It happened in Nazi Germany. First, there was registration, then there was confiscation. Once they know where and who has the guns, it becomes easy to collect them.
Click to expand...

Begging the question.

If I can produce evidence of a country that has registration, licensing and selective confiscation that hasn't completely banned private firearms you'd still argue, "not yet, not yet!". My response would be, "so far so good!" and we'd be lost in spiralling rhetoric.

It happens sometimes, but not all the time. The purpose of Gun Control is sold to the public as some form of citizen protection from the criminal element. The only way that firearms are collected from criminals is after they have committed a crime and have been caught. Gun confiscation gives the criminal the knowledge that there is little chance that there is a gun in the the house they have targeted.
Click to expand...

Look in the US you're pretty much fucked when it comes to crime. Every home and vehicle should have a gun. You need a gun because crime is out of control you have to be able to defend yourself. So, go for it. But that doesn't apply in countries that are not so benighted when it comes to crime. Gun control in those countries is about harm minimisation and reduction. It's not sold with a reference to crime control and if it is then that's absolutely dishonest.
 
PorterM said:
That is exactly right, gun control is not about disarming criminals, it is about disarming law abiding citizens. They are the only ones that would comply with any gun control law.
Click to expand...

Total prohibition of firearms is where all private firearms are removed from society. Gun control is not total prohibition of firearms. There is a difference.
 
Watermark said:
Conservatism is about removing all shades of difference from the thoughts of the citizenry.
Click to expand...

It never used to be until a mob of dickheads grabbed the label for their own nefarious purposes and using the corporate media convinced the average person that putting power and wealth and influence were into the hands of a a very small elite who called themselves "conservatives" when they were reactionary evil bastards was a good idea.

Sucked in.
 
Diuretic said:
Total prohibition of firearms is where all private firearms are removed from society. Gun control is not total prohibition of firearms. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Gun Control is a scheme to stop crime. It does not work. How does making it illegal for me to own a gun help anyone or make society safer?

How does Gun Control affect the criminal's ability to obtain an illegal firearm? How are Gun Control laws going to affect Gangs?

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
-- Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc.​

"Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands."
-- Rebecca Peters, the International Action Network on Small Arms, 2004​

In America, where you have severe Gun Control laws, you have higher crime rates especially violent crime.

Gun Control laws are not designed to stop crime although they are sold with that premise in mind.
 
Diuretic said:
I can prove it on an intuitive basis. If guns are restricted to those who are capable and responsible then harm will be reduced. If guns are allowed to be owned by anyone who isn't a convicted criminal and no other requirements are in place then the harm will not be reduced or minimised.
Click to expand...
This is a case example of the saying "logic is the process by which one can arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence."

Those are some grand sized "IF"s you describe. By what standards does one determine who is "capable and responsible" enough to be granted the right to own firearms? Second, how are those standards applied?

And, just for clarification, the challenge to you is to prove gun control laws actually accomplish the IFs you describe. It was not to describe the theory behind the intent of gun control. Whether the goal is "reduction of harm" or "reduce violent crime" it is easy to describe the intent of gun control laws. It is far more difficult (IMO, impossible - because gun control laws do not work) to prove the laws derived from the theory actually meet their intent.

Gun control laws in the United States have failed miserably to accomplish the goals they were written for. That makes them, by definition, poor laws. It makes them dead wrong laws when coupled with the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally enumerated right. To accept as necessary infringement on a right which is not supposed to be infringed is a dangerous precedent.(which a large number of gun control advocates understand when talking anything except gun control.) But when there is no benefit derived from those infringements, continued acceptance and/or demand for ever greater infringements is outright assinine.
 
PorterM said:
Gun Control is a scheme to stop crime. It does not work. How does making it illegal for me to own a gun help anyone or make society safer?

How does Gun Control affect the criminal's ability to obtain an illegal firearm? How are Gun Control laws going to affect Gangs?

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
-- Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc.​

"Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands."
-- Rebecca Peters, the International Action Network on Small Arms, 2004​

In America, where you have severe Gun Control laws, you have higher crime rates especially violent crime.

Gun Control laws are not designed to stop crime although they are sold with that premise in mind.
Click to expand...

First point. I rely on my own thoughts to come to a position. I’ve long held the position that gun control has – or should not anyway – no connection with crime control. The two are separate public policy issues for me at least.

So where you put the statement and question - Gun Control is a scheme to stop crime. It does not work. How does making it illegal for me to own a gun help anyone or make society safer? I have to answer that gun control has nothing to do with crime control. Gun control is aimed (yay pun) are making society safer by reducing the potential harm from the misuse (not criminal use) of firearms.

And you ask How does Gun Control affect the criminal's ability to obtain an illegal firearm? How are Gun Control laws going to affect Gangs? And I answer, gun control won’t do that and it shouldn’t be intended to do that. Good police work, effective legislation and some cooperation from the courts are some ways of handling it.
 
Good Luck said:
This is a case example of the saying "logic is the process by which one can arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence."

Those are some grand sized "IF"s you describe. By what standards does one determine who is "capable and responsible" enough to be granted the right to own firearms? Second, how are those standards applied?

And, just for clarification, the challenge to you is to prove gun control laws actually accomplish the IFs you describe. It was not to describe the theory behind the intent of gun control. Whether the goal is "reduction of harm" or "reduce violent crime" it is easy to describe the intent of gun control laws. It is far more difficult (IMO, impossible - because gun control laws do not work) to prove the laws derived from the theory actually meet their intent.

Gun control laws in the United States have failed miserably to accomplish the goals they were written for. That makes them, by definition, poor laws. It makes them dead wrong laws when coupled with the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally enumerated right. To accept as necessary infringement on a right which is not supposed to be infringed is a dangerous precedent.(which a large number of gun control advocates understand when talking anything except gun control.) But when there is no benefit derived from those infringements, continued acceptance and/or demand for ever greater infringements is outright assinine.
Click to expand...

If you need some examples of how gun control legislation can be drafted so that it picks up how to screen out those who shouldn’t be permitted to lawfully own/use a firearm I’ll be happy to point them out. But you won't like them because they will clash with your cultural values. But that's okay, it's your right to reject workable gun control laws. And as I've said, the US is awash with firearms, anyone proposing effective gun control in the US is pissing into a hurricane.

And, just for clarification, the challenge to you is to prove gun control laws actually accomplish the IFs you describe. It was not to describe the theory behind the intent of gun control. Whether the goal is "reduction of harm" or "reduce violent crime" it is easy to describe the intent of gun control laws. It is far more difficult (IMO, impossible - because gun control laws do not work) to prove the laws derived from the theory actually meet their intent.

As I responded, I can only do it intuitively. Now I have to point out that you’re begging the question as well, assuming the truth of your conclusion from your own premises. That makes the task difficult for me because you’ve produced evidence of your closed mind on this.

But getting back on point, it would be necessary, I think, to study a before and after approach to prove the efficacy of gun control laws. I can't see that happening anywhere. It's best to look at trends in jurisdictions where gun control laws are in place to see if they're effective.

In my country there is a national scheme to monitor deaths and injuries from firearms. This one of their reports.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.html

The project is here - http://www.aic.gov.au/research/projects/0002.html

The US won’t have effective gun control laws for various reasons, among them vested interests and cultural reasons. But because your country can't or won't do it, that doesn't mean the idea is invalid or ineffective. That's make a very simple mistake about the concept and it's probably the cause of your confusion about the issue.
 
Diuretic said:
First point. I rely on my own thoughts to come to a position. I’ve long held the position that gun control has – or should not anyway – no connection with crime control. The two are separate public policy issues for me at least.

So where you put the statement and question - Gun Control is a scheme to stop crime. It does not work. How does making it illegal for me to own a gun help anyone or make society safer? I have to answer that gun control has nothing to do with crime control. Gun control is aimed (yay pun) are making society safer by reducing the potential harm from the misuse (not criminal use) of firearms.

And you ask How does Gun Control affect the criminal's ability to obtain an illegal firearm? How are Gun Control laws going to affect Gangs? And I answer, gun control won’t do that and it shouldn’t be intended to do that. Good police work, effective legislation and some cooperation from the courts are some ways of handling it.
Click to expand...

If Gun Control Laws are not intended as a crime preventative, then what is its purpose if not to remove guns from law abiding citizens? All we ever hear is that there are too many guns on the streets and more Gun Control Laws are needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top