Forums
First  << 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 20:05:05
I try to avoid this thread for obvious reasons.... but I don't see why there is such resistance to having to register each gun properly and require a background check for each. I really don't know if limiting clip size would really have an effect on crime, but making it more regulated buying a car sure would. It only stands to reason, really, that if a background check is required on ALL purchases and every gun must be registered that there would be less guns sold to people who have no business owning guns.

I'm sure some convicted felons and whatnot would resort to buying guns illegally off the streets, but i bet you not all of them would. the highly organized gun crimes in this country are not committed by Joe going to his local private dealership and buying 500 guns and distributing them to local gangs. But as it is right now, Joe the Plumber may have a felony on his record and though he isn't planning on killing his girlfriend, her f**k buddy and her son from an ex husband, maybe after Joe the Plumber purchases the gun from a private store he discovers three months later that his girlfriend is cheating on him and he decides to grab his gun on impulse, drive to the house where she's a and you end up with a triple homicide. Had there been proper background checks and registration procedures, Joe would not have been sold the gun in the first place.

Having to do a background check may be slightly more inconvenient for law abiding citizens, but it is not stopping you from purchasing guns. The simple fact that pro-gun people turn the word "regulation" into "absolute total recall and ban" just loses their credibility.

Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 20:11:00
And also, unlike many people on these forums, I provide some actual statistics to go along with my opinions. But here's a site I found confirming what I figured was true:

"On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men."

clicky source

Of all those murders, how many of them are committed with a gun that was purchased "legally" from a dealer who did not conduct a background check and sold it to someone who otherwise would not have been able to purchase one? Perhaps in that statistic right there is where we could see the largest reduction of crime.

Last Edited: Fri Mar 01, 2013 20:12:52
Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BuckWyld

ID: 1009930
Level: 70
Posts: 6003
Score: 3644
BuckWyld [1009930]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 20:12:35
By Dingleberry [1707233]
Giz me ur monies i av a gun!!!!


*throws 50 cents worth of pennies at you & runs like hell*

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-El-

ID: 463504
Level: 77
Posts: 2191
Score: 1160
eV-El- [463504]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 20:34:22
By bosox [278767]
I try to avoid this thread for obvious reasons.... but I don't see why there is such resistance to having to register each gun properly and require a background check for each. I really don't know if limiting clip size would really have an effect on crime, but making it more regulated buying a car sure would. It only stands to reason, really, that if a background check is required on ALL purchases and every gun must be registered that there would be less guns sold to people who have no business owning guns.

I'm sure some convicted felons and whatnot would resort to buying guns illegally off the streets, but i bet you not all of them would. the highly organized gun crimes in this country are not committed by Joe going to his local private dealership and buying 500 guns and distributing them to local gangs. But as it is right now, Joe the Plumber may have a felony on his record and though he isn't planning on killing his girlfriend, her f**k buddy and her son from an ex husband, maybe after Joe the Plumber purchases the gun from a private store he discovers three months later that his girlfriend is cheating on him and he decides to grab his gun on impulse, drive to the house where she's a and you end up with a triple homicide. Had there been proper background checks and registration procedures, Joe would not have been sold the gun in the first place.

Having to do a background check may be slightly more inconvenient for law abiding citizens, but it is not stopping you from purchasing guns. The simple fact that pro-gun people turn the word "regulation" into "absolute total recall and ban" just loses their credibility.


You could come back to NY & I could show you how to get one. Not legal of course.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LadyMel

ID: 608148
Level: 64
Posts: 1085
Score: 89
LadyMel [608148]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 20:47:12
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
They do background checks on people who rent appartments or buy a home, most with fees, to make sure you are able to pay your rent/mortgage. Why not a little research to find out if the person you're selling a gun to may not harm another human being. It's not compeletely fool proof but it may still save a life.


they do background check to make sure THEY get their money, not to protect anybody...but good try.


Yes, which is exactly what I mentioned in the above statement. I did not try to hide that fact. So it is ok to compare buying a car and registering a gun but not ok to compare buying/renting a home with background checks for a gun? Interesting.

I'm prretty sure you're smart enough to get my point Luke.

So no one thinks 1 life would be saved if all gun merchants were required to do a thorough background check similar to what banks or even some jobs do before putting a gun in someone's hands?

When I say no one I'm speaking specifically to nay-sayers in this thread or future speakers on gun regulation.

Last Edited: Fri Mar 01, 2013 21:20:42
mybanner48e118747d651ah4.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 23:09:37
By LadyMel [608148]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
They do background checks on people who rent appartments or buy a home, most with fees, to make sure you are able to pay your rent/mortgage. Why not a little research to find out if the person you're selling a gun to may not harm another human being. It's not compeletely fool proof but it may still save a life.


they do background check to make sure THEY get their money, not to protect anybody...but good try.


Yes, which is exactly what I mentioned in the above statement. I did not try to hide that fact. So it is ok to compare buying a car and registering a gun but not ok to compare buying/renting a home with background checks for a gun? Interesting.

I'm prretty sure you're smart enough to get my point Luke.

So no one thinks 1 life would be saved if all gun merchants were required to do a thorough background check similar to what banks or even some jobs do before putting a gun in someone's hands?

When I say no one I'm speaking specifically to nay-sayers in this thread or future speakers on gun regulation.


sorry, but i didnt compare cars and guns...thats ted.

Yes, i do indeed understand your point. But it is easy to see your not thinking about the person selling the gun's POV. They will have to fork out money for every single background check they do, which can add up.

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 23:20:42
By bosox [278767]
And also, unlike many people on these forums, I provide some actual statistics to go along with my opinions. But here's a site I found confirming what I figured was true:

"On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men."

clicky source

Of all those murders, how many of them are committed with a gun that was purchased "legally" from a dealer who did not conduct a background check and sold it to someone who otherwise would not have been able to purchase one? Perhaps in that statistic right there is where we could see the largest reduction of crime.


So your saying a good majority of them people were convicted of a FELONY before they killed their spouse? Hate to break it to you bosox, but most crimes of passion (which is what your talking about) are committed by everyday normal law abiding people who snap. Most show NO signs before hand, and have no felonies. The government also have already tried to prevent these by making you wait 30 days i think when you order a handgun.

Which i have also thrown facts and stats and links up to show that if any guns need to have restrictions it should be handguns and .22's since they are used in crimes more then any other gun/ammo. Yet people like Ted, completely ignorant about the subject but think they know something want to attack AR's and any semi-auto rifle.

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LadyMel

ID: 608148
Level: 64
Posts: 1085
Score: 89
LadyMel [608148]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 00:41:28
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
They do background checks on people who rent appartments or buy a home, most with fees, to make sure you are able to pay your rent/mortgage. Why not a little research to find out if the person you're selling a gun to may not harm another human being. It's not compeletely fool proof but it may still save a life.


they do background check to make sure THEY get their money, not to protect anybody...but good try.


Yes, which is exactly what I mentioned in the above statement. I did not try to hide that fact. So it is ok to compare buying a car and registering a gun but not ok to compare buying/renting a home with background checks for a gun? Interesting.

I'm prretty sure you're smart enough to get my point Luke.

So no one thinks 1 life would be saved if all gun merchants were required to do a thorough background check similar to what banks or even some jobs do before putting a gun in someone's hands?

When I say no one I'm speaking specifically to nay-sayers in this thread or future speakers on gun regulation.


sorry, but i didnt compare cars and guns...thats ted.

Yes, i do indeed understand your point. But it is easy to see your not thinking about the person selling the gun's POV. They will have to fork out money for every single background check they do, which can add up.


Actually you brought up the car analogy but I'm on my phone so to quote that would be a pain in the ass. And with renting/buying a home, most time it is up to the renter/buyer to put in the money for the credit check. I'm therefore suggesting that the buyers not the sellers will be the ones affected with having to pay for the background check. Even if some fees fall the sellers way, so what. If I was a seller I'd want to make sure as best as I possibly could that I'm selling it to a responsible individual. It's not entirely fool proof but I'm sure it will cut down on some that really shouldn't have a gun in their home.

mybanner48e118747d651ah4.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:10:10
By -Cindy- [747490]
The purpose of a background check it to make sure a buyer is not a criminal. Criminals do not volunteer for background checks when they know they will be refused the sale. So, they steal guns or buy them on the streets.

How would further expanding background checks help matters? It wouldn't. It would just be more costly legislation to make people feel better.


Right. So since criminals will always be able to get past car security, you might as well give up and leave your keys in the ignition at night.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:22:11
By LadyMel [608148]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
They do background checks on people who rent appartments or buy a home, most with fees, to make sure you are able to pay your rent/mortgage. Why not a little research to find out if the person you're selling a gun to may not harm another human being. It's not compeletely fool proof but it may still save a life.


they do background check to make sure THEY get their money, not to protect anybody...but good try.


Yes, which is exactly what I mentioned in the above statement. I did not try to hide that fact. So it is ok to compare buying a car and registering a gun but not ok to compare buying/renting a home with background checks for a gun? Interesting.

I'm prretty sure you're smart enough to get my point Luke.

So no one thinks 1 life would be saved if all gun merchants were required to do a thorough background check similar to what banks or even some jobs do before putting a gun in someone's hands?

When I say no one I'm speaking specifically to nay-sayers in this thread or future speakers on gun regulation.


sorry, but i didnt compare cars and guns...thats ted.

Yes, i do indeed understand your point. But it is easy to see your not thinking about the person selling the gun's POV. They will have to fork out money for every single background check they do, which can add up.


Actually you brought up the car analogy but I'm on my phone so to quote that would be a pain in the ass. And with renting/buying a home, most time it is up to the renter/buyer to put in the money for the credit check. I'm therefore suggesting that the buyers not the sellers will be the ones affected with having to pay for the background check. Even if some fees fall the sellers way, so what. If I was a seller I'd want to make sure as best as I possibly could that I'm selling it to a responsible individual. It's not entirely fool proof but I'm sure it will cut down on some that really shouldn't have a gun in their home.


oh i have a great suggestion.

How about we stop blaming everything people do on the means and start blaming PEOPLE for what PEOPLE do. a hunk of steel cant harm a fly, now a hunk of steel in the hands of a person can kill just about anything.

guns are not the problem, people are the problem...thats simple and very easy to understand. Yet for some reason people want to blame guns when you can grab a knife and do the same, you can grab a propane tank and do the same thing. Hell, you can use your car and do the same god damn thing....


thats the first time cars were mentioned (by me) and it wasnt an analogy. I was just stating other every day things that can be used to commit the same acts people are up in arms over....and the things i said can all do it better (besides the knife).

Ted was the first person to actually compare cars to guns, saying we have to register cars so why not guns.

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:26:07
Ted, technology advances. My car is key less. It can't be stolen unless you pick it up and move it. Cars are not Constitutional rights, so I don't think it's related to the topic when talking about background checks.

Last Edited: Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:27:01
cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:38:00
I was pointing to the ridiculousness of not making a law because criminals will break it.

Why have any law then?

Why makes laws against murder? Only non-murders will obey it anyways so what is the point?

Last Edited: Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:42:11
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:42:13
why not just enforce the laws already on the book better? Why do we have to make new laws which will either not be enforced or just half ass enforced?

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:43:03
Well for one, the NRA has been fighting for the last couple of decades to make sure they arent enforced.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 03:49:12
We have 20,000+ guns laws already. I don't see how the NRA is stopping the police from enforcing these laws.

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Stain92

ID: 1040302
Level: 51
Posts: 702
Score: 527
Stain92 [1040302]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 04:05:00
By -Cindy- [747490]
We have 20,000+ guns laws already. I don't see how the NRA is stopping the police from enforcing these laws.


Doesn't that suggest that the slate needs to be wiped clean and laws need to be passed that are modern, better phrased, and easier to enforce?

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Silent-Rage

ID: 193964
Level: 63
Posts: 4823
Score: 1658
Silent-Rage [193964]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 04:12:45
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
why not just enforce the laws already on the book better? Why do we have to make new laws which will either not be enforced or just half ass enforced?


With all due respect: By that logic, no laws would have ever been rewritten and, for example, marital rape would still be legal. Times change, laws need to do the same to stay relevant.

522193a8-86fd-8b8a-193964.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 04:13:59
By Stain92 [1040302]
By -Cindy- [747490]
We have 20,000+ guns laws already. I don't see how the NRA is stopping the police from enforcing these laws.


Doesn't that suggest that the slate needs to be wiped clean and laws need to be passed that are modern, better phrased, and easier to enforce?


I'm alright with that as long as we are talking about laws that expand rights for legal and law abiding citizens.

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Silent-Rage

ID: 193964
Level: 63
Posts: 4823
Score: 1658
Silent-Rage [193964]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 05:42:53
By TedThomas [887131]
I was pointing to the ridiculousness of not making a law because criminals will break it.

Why have any law then?

Why makes laws against murder? Only non-murders will obey it anyways so what is the point?


This.

That's the argument I understand the least.

522193a8-86fd-8b8a-193964.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 05:53:44
By -Cindy- [747490]
We have 20,000+ guns laws already. I don't see how the NRA is stopping the police from enforcing these laws.


Would that be because you are completely unaware that the NRA has been lobbying for years to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for the ATF to do their job, cut their funding, and has a lot to do with why there hasnt been a director for 6 years?

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 06:09:22
By TedThomas [887131]
I was pointing to the ridiculousness of not making a law because criminals will break it.

Why have any law then?

Why makes laws against murder? Only non-murders will obey it anyways so what is the point?


Thats a conundrum in and of itself. ONLY criminals break laws. But laws are created because of criminals. There are certain things we all know common sense says we shouldn't do (kill without provocation, rape, molest, steal, etc.) but people do it regardless so we're forced to actually make it a law even though a decent human being knows it's wrong.

The problem comes in when people that maintain a law abiding life are forced to change their way of life because of pieces of shit who don't know what morals are. We all know it's wrong to kill, rob and steal but thugs that do it bring about laws that do not limit themselves but limit law abiding citizens. It's ridiculous that people that obey the law are limited because of people that abuse or ignore law. Everyone complains about freedoms being limited but they are limited because of people that do wrong, not because of the people that do right.

It would not be fair for people to forfeit their right to free speech because 'Change.Org' thinks too many people are rude and mean, just like it's unfair to law abiding citizens to forfeit even some of their gun rights just because some people do not use them correctly. The villains are in the minority by a large margin, so why affect the law abiding citizens that are the majority?

Limiting the right to bear arms because stupid people commit murder is like eliminating words from free speech because too many people say faggot or ******. We know murder is wrong, just like saying faggot or ****** in a derogatory way is wrong, but people will still do both. The people who use either in the wrong way are wrong, just like people who use guns the wrong way are wrong, but should we be able to arrest people for saying faggot and ******? No we shouldn't. We can look down on them, but we still respect their right to use those words, just like people who use guns improperly should be arrested for committing an actual crime but not for having them , but we should not take from people who have them and use them properly.

There are things that are wrong and there are things that are used wrong. Having a gun isn't wrong but somehow owning too many is according to some. Driving a car is not wrong, but driving too fast is. If we want to limit firearms that kill when used improperly, why are we not limiting vehicles that kill more? If the highest national speed limit is 75 on interstate, why do we make it so that cars can FAR exceed that? But we do. And MANY people use them improperly and MANY people are killed because of it. So why is it ok to limit guns that kill less but still make 400hp cars?

So really, why is everyone up in arms (no pun intended) about gun control when ONLY the people who use them properly will be affected? It's ridiculous. They won't stop selling Mustangs that do 100+mph when you're not allowed to pass 75, they won't stop making 24 packs of beer when 12 or less make you legally drunk (and legally your buying for your consumption, not to share) they won't make hammers illegal even thought more people die per year from hammers than shotguns, etc. So WHY?? Why attack people who obey laws and use what we earn legally because some idiots do not?

Last Edited: Sat Mar 02, 2013 06:26:42
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LadyMel

ID: 608148
Level: 64
Posts: 1085
Score: 89
LadyMel [608148]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 06:11:55
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By LadyMel [608148]
They do background checks on people who rent appartments or buy a home, most with fees, to make sure you are able to pay your rent/mortgage. Why not a little research to find out if the person you're selling a gun to may not harm another human being. It's not compeletely fool proof but it may still save a life.


they do background check to make sure THEY get their money, not to protect anybody...but good try.


Yes, which is exactly what I mentioned in the above statement. I did not try to hide that fact. So it is ok to compare buying a car and registering a gun but not ok to compare buying/renting a home with background checks for a gun? Interesting.

I'm prretty sure you're smart enough to get my point Luke.

So no one thinks 1 life would be saved if all gun merchants were required to do a thorough background check similar to what banks or even some jobs do before putting a gun in someone's hands?

When I say no one I'm speaking specifically to nay-sayers in this thread or future speakers on gun regulation.


sorry, but i didnt compare cars and guns...thats ted.

Yes, i do indeed understand your point. But it is easy to see your not thinking about the person selling the gun's POV. They will have to fork out money for every single background check they do, which can add up.


Actually you brought up the car analogy but I'm on my phone so to quote that would be a pain in the ass. And with renting/buying a home, most time it is up to the renter/buyer to put in the money for the credit check. I'm therefore suggesting that the buyers not the sellers will be the ones affected with having to pay for the background check. Even if some fees fall the sellers way, so what. If I was a seller I'd want to make sure as best as I possibly could that I'm selling it to a responsible individual. It's not entirely fool proof but I'm sure it will cut down on some that really shouldn't have a gun in their home.


oh i have a great suggestion.

How about we stop blaming everything people do on the means and start blaming PEOPLE for what PEOPLE do. a hunk of steel cant harm a fly, now a hunk of steel in the hands of a person can kill just about anything.

guns are not the problem, people are the problem...thats simple and very easy to understand. Yet for some reason people want to blame guns when you can grab a knife and do the same, you can grab a propane tank and do the same thing. Hell, you can use your car and do the same god damn thing....


thats the first time cars were mentioned (by me) and it wasnt an analogy. I was just stating other every day things that can be used to commit the same acts people are up in arms over....and the things i said can all do it better (besides the knife).

Ted was the first person to actually compare cars to guns, saying we have to register cars so why not guns.


Right... But I was talking about what you said. What Ted said was not relevant to my comment. Truly it is of no matter, especially since you're really serious about not taking owwnership of your comment. The question still goes unanswered...

Sometimes I think people want to argue just for the sake of arguing as to not come up with a real idea that we can all agree on. This plays out daily in the current Congress.

mybanner48e118747d651ah4.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 06:37:38
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
By TedThomas [887131]
I was pointing to the ridiculousness of not making a law because criminals will break it.

Why have any law then?

Why makes laws against murder? Only non-murders will obey it anyways so what is the point?


Thats a conundrum in and of itself. ONLY criminals break laws. But laws are created because of criminals. There are certain things we all know common sense says we shouldn't do (kill without provocation, rape, molest, steal, etc.) but people do it regardless so we're forced to actually make it a law even though a decent human being knows it's wrong.

The problem comes in when people that maintain a law abiding life are forced to change their way of life because of pieces of shit who don't know what morals are. We all know it's wrong to kill, rob and steal but thugs that do it bring about laws that do not limit themselves but limit law abiding citizens. It's ridiculous that people that obey the law are limited because of people that abuse or ignore law. Everyone complains about freedoms being limited but they are limited because of people that do wrong, not because of the people that do right.

It would not be fair for people to forfeit their right to free speech because 'Change.Org' thinks too many people are rude and mean, just like it's unfair to law abiding citizens to forfeit even some of their gun rights just because some people do not use them correctly. The villains are in the minority by a large margin, so why affect the law abiding citizens that are the majority?

Limiting the right to bear arms because stupid people commit murder is like eliminating words from free speech because too many people say faggot or ******. We know murder is wrong, just like saying faggot or ****** in a derogatory way is wrong, but people will still do both. The people who use either in the wrong way are wrong, just like people who use guns the wrong way are wrong, but should we be able to arrest people for saying faggot and ******? No we shouldn't. We can look down on them, but we still respect their right to use those words, just like people who use guns improperly should be arrested for committing an actual crime but not for having them , but we should not take from people who have them and use them properly.

There are things that are wrong and there are things that are used wrong. Having a gun isn't wrong but somehow owning too many is according to some. Driving a car is not wrong, but driving too fast is. If we want to limit firearms that kill when used improperly, why are we not limiting vehicles that kill more? If the highest national speed limit is 75 on interstate, why do we make it so that cars can FAR exceed that? But we do. And MANY people use them improperly and MANY people are killed because of it. So why is it ok to limit guns that kill less but still make 400hp cars?


It is not a conundrum. We make laws to deter people from doing it in the first place, and punish people for breaking boundaries that we create. They are rules that we agree to live by to be a part of stable civil society, and we discipline those who go against the common good.

You dont just not make laws because you are afraid that only criminals will break them, that is stupid.



Again, the geniuses who keep bringing up cars...WE REGULATE CARS. Stop bringing up cars unless your point is that we should tax and regulate guns like we do cars. You cant keep saying that guns and cars kill people so they are the same, and then completely ignore the fact that we at least register cars and you have to pass a test to be able to drive one.



Last Edited: Sat Mar 02, 2013 06:42:41
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 07:38:23
By TedThomas [887131]
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
By TedThomas [887131]
I was pointing to the ridiculousness of not making a law because criminals will break it.

Why have any law then?

Why makes laws against murder? Only non-murders will obey it anyways so what is the point?


Thats a conundrum in and of itself. ONLY criminals break laws. But laws are created because of criminals. There are certain things we all know common sense says we shouldn't do (kill without provocation, rape, molest, steal, etc.) but people do it regardless so we're forced to actually make it a law even though a decent human being knows it's wrong.

The problem comes in when people that maintain a law abiding life are forced to change their way of life because of pieces of shit who don't know what morals are. We all know it's wrong to kill, rob and steal but thugs that do it bring about laws that do not limit themselves but limit law abiding citizens. It's ridiculous that people that obey the law are limited because of people that abuse or ignore law. Everyone complains about freedoms being limited but they are limited because of people that do wrong, not because of the people that do right.

It would not be fair for people to forfeit their right to free speech because 'Change.Org' thinks too many people are rude and mean, just like it's unfair to law abiding citizens to forfeit even some of their gun rights just because some people do not use them correctly. The villains are in the minority by a large margin, so why affect the law abiding citizens that are the majority?

Limiting the right to bear arms because stupid people commit murder is like eliminating words from free speech because too many people say faggot or ******. We know murder is wrong, just like saying faggot or ****** in a derogatory way is wrong, but people will still do both. The people who use either in the wrong way are wrong, just like people who use guns the wrong way are wrong, but should we be able to arrest people for saying faggot and ******? No we shouldn't. We can look down on them, but we still respect their right to use those words, just like people who use guns improperly should be arrested for committing an actual crime but not for having them , but we should not take from people who have them and use them properly.

There are things that are wrong and there are things that are used wrong. Having a gun isn't wrong but somehow owning too many is according to some. Driving a car is not wrong, but driving too fast is. If we want to limit firearms that kill when used improperly, why are we not limiting vehicles that kill more? If the highest national speed limit is 75 on interstate, why do we make it so that cars can FAR exceed that? But we do. And MANY people use them improperly and MANY people are killed because of it. So why is it ok to limit guns that kill less but still make 400hp cars?


It is not a conundrum. We make laws to deter people from doing it in the first place, and punish people for breaking boundaries that we create. They are rules that we agree to live by to be a part of stable civil society, and we discipline those who go against the common good.

You dont just not make laws because you are afraid that only criminals will break them, that is stupid.



Again, the geniuses who keep bringing up cars...WE REGULATE CARS. Stop bringing up cars unless your point is that we should tax and regulate guns like we do cars. You cant keep saying that guns and cars kill people so they are the same, and then completely ignore the fact that we at least register cars and you have to pass a test to be able to drive one.



It IS somewhat of a conundrum because obviously some things that the majority of us think are wrong (Rape, murder, theft, assault) people continue to do yet there are many other things that are not against the law that we all frown upon but people still do. Laws are made because some people did things we all find improper but did them too many times so we changed our opinions and laws over time. Law has evolved just as we have. 200 years ago f**king an 8 year old was ok, but we evolved and now it's rightfully illegal. So the "conundrum" is that it takes people doing the wrong thing in order for it to be called the wrong thing. Knowing something is wrong is common sense, outlawing something is a different story. Hence why everywhere in the world has different drinking ages, different smoking ages and different ages of consent. The law and morality is different everywhere and constantly changing so what is morally wrong but legal one minute in one place could change at any time.

I'm not talking about the comparison of license and registration, I'm talking lethality. The victim of the current outcry is magazine size (Horsepower) and rifle style (model). Cars ARE regulated but so ARE guns. They may not be regulated as much as YOU wish, but neither are cars. When cars contribute the overwhelming majority of deaths compared to guns, why are we not attacking them? Why are we not limiting horsepower like some are trying to limit guns? Why are there so many sports cars ("assault rifles") on the street with large horsepower (large capacity magazines) vehicles kill more people than guns? Why are we not boycotting Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, etc. when cars kill more than guns? Sports cars may not be the highest death rates (neither are high caliber ammo or high capacity firearms) but they have the capacity to be the most dangerous. It's the same argument yet one that will never see the light of day, while people who fear firearms keep attacking certain weapons even though the weapons and accessories account for a miniscule percentage of whats used in the crimes they claim to want to illuminate.

The .38 special is the most commonly used murder firearm there is, yet it is not the most common nor the most powerful.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 09:26:49
No its not a conundrum or mystery or whatever the hell you want to bullshit. It is actually pretty simple.

You dont make laws based on whether criminals are going to break them or not. Period. End of discussion.


And yes, if people were using Hummers several times a year to purposely mow down people for a decade, there would probably be people talking about banning them. Sorry to spoil your victim card.

You are right, its not regulated as much as I would "like". What I would "like" is to see weapons designed to kill shit have at least the minimum controls we have for buying cold medicine.


One thing you seem to be completely unaware of is that laws also deter non-criminals from becoming criminals. You appear to be under the impression that everyone that uses a gun to commit a crime is a stereotypical hoodlum from some crappy Hollywood movie.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DeathStar92
ID: 1638313
Level: 16
Posts: 10
Score: 0
DeathStar92 [1638313]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 14:51:32
Who needs gun control we should let people own guns and not have any stupid laws on them.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
VanillaGod

ID: 485929
Level: 72
Posts: 684
Score: 303
~cF~VanillaGod [485929]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 15:29:58
school_zps38a6994b.jpg

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Rory_Breaker

ID: 1007389
Level: 90
Posts: 533
Score: 112
39thRory_Breaker [1007389]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Mar 02, 2013 16:32:18
i like the idea of having no restrictions of firearms in the US.they can shoot and defend themselves all day long as long as say do it in their own country.
GOGOGO US!

Rory.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Quincy_Gatlin
ID: 1708295
Level: 9
Posts: 6
Score: 1
Quincy_Gatlin [1708295]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Mar 03, 2013 19:54:47
I decked my SKS out, no one is going to come and take my guns from me. It's just a simple question that isn't hard to answer. Are you willing to die to try and take my guns? Because I'm willing to die to keep you from it.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DeathStar92
ID: 1638313
Level: 16
Posts: 10
Score: 0
DeathStar92 [1638313]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Mar 03, 2013 20:08:20
Screw gun control. If people want to get guns they will get them one way or another. The Goverment won't keep guns out of criminal hands. So just let people buy guns without background checks or resrictions and the world will be better place

Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
First  << 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last