47
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2020 09:24 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
An after-the-fact law is futile.


Almost every law is an after-the-fact law. You have to actually break the law for it to be effective. Until then it's just words on paper.

Minority Report was a movie, not a philosophy.

There are regulations that one must abide by, though, that are effective.


Effective? No they aren't. Show me a regulation that stopped a criminal...
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2020 10:09 pm
@McGentrix,
Regulations do not stop criminality completely, they mitigate it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 11:54 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I didn't see any mention though of:
- massacres
- gun ownership preventing massacres

I mention this last as it was part of your claim.

I don't have massacre stats, but there was an attempted church shooting in Texas about half a year ago, and the armed parishioners had the shooter dead seconds after he opened fire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting

There is actual video of the shooting so it can be analyzed (the church services were being streamed live on the internet), but the moderators probably wouldn't like me posting it.

Massacres tend to continue until the police show up with guns, so it seems pretty clear that the way to stop a massacre is with armed opposition.


vikorr wrote:
I wonder if they have a comparison on gun regulation effect (perhaps divided into light, moderate, heavy regulation)

Probably not. And terms like light and heavy regulation would probably be hard to quantify.

It would probably be more useful to try to judge the effects of specific regulatory measures (like background checks, or mandatory gun safes).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 01:16 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
His answer to gun violence is more guns. The areas he talks about are already saturated with guns.
He's touting gun violence.

Justified defensive violence is good.

It's only criminal violence that is bad.

Criminal violence is bad regardless of whether guns are involved.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 01:17 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Regulations do not stop criminality completely, they mitigate it.

Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns do absolutely nothing to mitigate criminal activity.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 01:28 pm
@oralloy,
Laws must be comprehensive to be effective, e.g. the banning of assault weapons, the reduction of the availability of guns, and greater restrictions on their ownership.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 01:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
Laws must address criminality to be effective at reducing criminality.

Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns do not address criminality in any way.

Additionally, preventing law abiding people from having guns violates the Second Amendment.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 02:02 pm
@oralloy,
Laws addressing criminality are one way to reduce criminality. They are not the only way.

Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns are hardly comprehensive gun regulations, e.g. e.g. the banning of assault weapons, the reduction of the availability of guns, and greater restrictions on their ownership.

Right, preventing law abiding people from having guns violates the Second Amendment. Comprehensive gun regulations would not do this, however.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 02:26 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Laws addressing criminality are one way to reduce criminality. They are not the only way.

Can you describe any other way?


InfraBlue wrote:
Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns are hardly comprehensive gun regulations, e.g. e.g. the banning of assault weapons,

Your statement here is contradictory, as what you refer to as the banning of assault weapons is really just a law against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns.


InfraBlue wrote:
Right, preventing law abiding people from having guns violates the Second Amendment. Comprehensive gun regulations would not do this, however.

Your reference to reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership sounds a lot like preventing law abiding people from having them.

But perhaps that is just because your terms are so vague. What exactly do you mean when you talk of reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership?
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 03:45 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Definition of infringe
transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 04:31 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Laws addressing criminality are one way to reduce criminality. They are not the only way.

Can you describe any other way?

Regulatory measures also reduce criminality.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns are hardly comprehensive gun regulations, e.g. e.g. the banning of assault weapons,

Your statement here is contradictory, as what you refer to as the banning of assault weapons is really just a law against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns.

No it's not, and no it isn't.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Right, preventing law abiding people from having guns violates the Second Amendment. Comprehensive gun regulations would not do this, however.

Your reference to reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership sounds a lot like preventing law abiding people from having them.

Reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership is different from preventing law abiding people from having them.

oralloy wrote:

But perhaps that is just because your terms are so vague. What exactly do you mean when you talk of reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership?

This involves the banning of certain guns, the reduction of the amount of guns available in the market, a limit on the number of guns possessable by law abiding people, and registration of guns possessed.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 04:33 pm
@McGentrix,
Comprehensive gun control would do neither.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 05:02 pm
@InfraBlue,
Your term "comprehensive gun control" is meaningless if you don't make it clear what you mean by the term.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 05:06 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Regulatory measures also reduce criminality.

What's the difference between a law and a regulatory measure?


InfraBlue wrote:
no it isn't.

So what are you referring to by assault weapon? Semi-auto versions of a weapon that the military uses?

How would laws against "semi-auto versions of a weapon that the military uses" reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?


InfraBlue wrote:
This involves the banning of certain guns,

Which guns?

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?


InfraBlue wrote:
the reduction of the amount of guns available in the market,

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?


InfraBlue wrote:
a limit on the number of guns possessable by law abiding people,

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?


InfraBlue wrote:
registration of guns possessed.

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 07:40 pm
@oralloy,
I've repeatedly explained it.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 09:25 pm
@InfraBlue,
Again, my guns have never committed a crime and neither have I. Why should I be held to the same account as a criminal that has used a gun in the commission of a crime? Put the criminal in jail, add time for using a gun.

You have to make it extremely clear that using a gun in a crime will have severe penalties. Proof will require 100% super clear evidence though. We can't have rogue cops planting guns on criminals either.

If I want a gun that has a banana clip, pistol grip, night vision, suppressor, adjustable stock and what ever else, I should be allowed to knowing that if I use it in the commission of a crime, that 10 years added just for the gun.

I am happy to run background checks, I think they are awesome, but it has to be reasonable and not ridiculous.

InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 09:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Regulatory measures also reduce criminality.

What's the difference between a law and a regulatory measure?

Sometimes they're the same, sometimes they're not, like those enacted by executive orders.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
no it isn't.

So what are you referring to by assault weapon? Semi-auto versions of a weapon that the military uses?

How would laws against "semi-auto versions of a weapon that the military uses" reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

By reducing crimes committed with those weapons.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
This involves the banning of certain guns,

Which guns?

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

Assault weapons, namely.

By limiting crimes committed with those weapons.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
the reduction of the amount of guns available in the market,

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

Limiting gun availability would reduce criminal gun activity and its severity.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
a limit on the number of guns possessable by law abiding people,

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

By reducing the chances of guns being used for criminal activity.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
registration of guns possessed.

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

It would create a disincentive to criminal activity by making it easier to track criminal activity to gun possession.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 09:41 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Again, my guns have never committed a crime and neither have I. Why should I be held to the same account as a criminal that has used a gun in the commission of a crime? Put the criminal in jail, add time for using a gun.

Because those criminals make it imperative to enact comprehensive gun control that affect everyone in a manner that would reduce everyone's chances of using guns in criminal acts.

McGentrix wrote:
You have to make it extremely clear that using a gun in a crime will have severe penalties. Proof will require 100% super clear evidence though. We can't have rogue cops planting guns on criminals either.

If I want a gun that has a banana clip, pistol grip, night vision, suppressor, adjustable stock and what ever else, I should be allowed to knowing that if I use it in the commission of a crime, that 10 years added just for the gun.

I am happy to run background checks, I think they are awesome, but it has to be reasonable and not ridiculous.


That hasn't been effective in curbing gun crimes to the satisfaction of a multitude of law abiding citizens.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 09:50 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Because those criminals make it imperative to enact comprehensive gun control that affect everyone in a manner that would reduce everyone's chances of using guns in criminal acts.

That hasn't been effective in curbing gun crimes to the satisfaction of a multitude of law abiding citizens.


The very fact that they are criminals should imply the fact that they do not care about any gun laws or regulations. They are criminals. It is in their job description that they will not be choosing to follow and kind of gun law.

What they ARE hoping for is that the people they rob won't also be criminals and have guns to shoot back with. They are hoping for great advertising like "GUN FREE ZONE" where they know they will be safe.

I wonder if there has been any case where a dude was going to go shoot up a place, saw the "GUN FREE ZONE" and thought "DAMN! I can't use my gun there!!"
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 10:20 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Because those criminals make it imperative to enact comprehensive gun control that affect everyone in a manner that would reduce everyone's chances of using guns in criminal acts.

That hasn't been effective in curbing gun crimes to the satisfaction of a multitude of law abiding citizens.


The very fact that they are criminals should imply the fact that they do not care about any gun laws or regulations. They are criminals. It is in their job description that they will not be choosing to follow and kind of gun law.

As we've previously discussed in regard to gun crimes, they're only gun criminals up until the time that they've committed a gun crime. Comprehensive gun regulation would make it difficult for anyone to commit a gun crime.

McGentrix wrote:
What they ARE hoping for is that the people they rob won't also be criminals and have guns to shoot back with. They are hoping for great advertising like "GUN FREE ZONE" where they know they will be safe.

I wonder if there has been any case where a dude was going to go shoot up a place, saw the "GUN FREE ZONE" and thought "DAMN! I can't use my gun there!!"

Comprehensive gun regulation would make that scenario moot.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 02:46:01