US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Grave_n_idle]

If you can't feed yourself on one deer a day, gun ownership is the least of your worries.

what, you're supposed to only hunt for yourself? so now back we go to hunter gatherer society where absolutely everyone has to be directly implicated in food procurement? I see a lot of progress in this thread?

I think perhaps you're reading what you want to read, because you're not responding to what I wrote, or the context.

Try again.

[Grave_n_idle]

First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Anyway, I support background checks screening for criminals and the mentally ill. I would also require that gun owners with mentally unstable family members to keep their guns locked up. Beyond that, I don't support any gun control. Bans are stupid, because they punish law abiding citizens along with criminals. I also support the relaxation of concealed carry laws, and make the decision to ban guns that of property owners.

I get that America is really hooked on the idea of guns as a 'right', but banning something isn't inherently a 'punishment, or even a bad thing.

[Vazdania]

No.

You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.

[Grave_n_idle]

You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.

Why?

Lots of skilled jobs now require certification and continuing education to make sure you maintain your expertise at the top of your field - why would that be bad for politicians?

If you don't test them, how do you know your elected representative (and remember, being an expert is their job) actually knows anything?

I see no problem with continuing education requirements for politicians.

[Republica Newland]

First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Anyway, I support background checks screening for criminals and the mentally ill. I would also require that gun owners with mentally unstable family members to keep their guns locked up. Beyond that, I don't support any gun control. Bans are stupid, because they punish law abiding citizens along with criminals. I also support the relaxation of concealed carry laws, and make the decision to ban guns that of property owners.

I get that America is really hooked on the idea of guns as a 'right', but banning something isn't inherently a punishment, or even a bad thing.

Banning stuff has rarely been a good thing.

[Republica Newland]

You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.

Well I'll have to say being a politician has got to be one of the most mentally un-challenging jobs out there.

[Grave_n_idle]

I get that America is really hooked on the idea of guns as a 'right', but banning something isn't inherently a punishment, or even a bad thing.

Banning stuff has rarely been a good thing.

Actually, 'banning stuff' is arguably what makes life liveable. We prohibit all kinds of things to make our lives sustainable and pleasant. Like murder.

You could argue that banning murder punishes murderers, but I think it is an abuse of the word 'punish'.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.

Well I'll have to say being a politician has got to be one of the most mentally un-challenging jobs out there.

That's not really fair, there are a lot of very intelligent people in politics. It's just that the loudmouthed idiots (looking at you, Ron Paul) make everyone look more stupid just by being in the same room.

[Republica Newland]

Banning stuff has rarely been a good thing.

Actually, 'banning stuff' is arguably what makes life liveable. We prohibit all kinds of things to make our lives sustainable and pleasant. Like murder.

You could argue that banning murder punishes murderers, but I think it is an abuse of the word 'punish'.

No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?

Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?

Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.

[Republica Newland]

Well I'll have to say being a politician has got to be one of the most mentally un-challenging jobs out there.

That's not really fair, there are a lot of very intelligent people in politics. It's just that the loudmouthed idiots (looking at you, Ron Paul) make everyone look more stupid just by being in the same room.

DeGette comes to mind. Or anyone preaching the cult of the Evil Black Rifles.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?

*sigh*

Relax. Take a breath. Slow down and read it again.

I said that banning things isn't inherently a punishment, and that we ban all kinds of things, to make our lives liveable.

For example, murder. I'm saying you could argue that banning it (murder) is a punishment. If you argue that bans are inherently punitive.

Now slow down and look at that - you don't agree that banning murder is a punishment, do you?

So, logically - banning things isn't actually (inherently) a punishment.

Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?

And I'm saying that gun owners aren't inherently being 'punished' by a ban.

(Not that I'm pro-ban - I'm not. I'm just objecting to this line about bans being punishment).

Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.

Are you under the impression murder is the only thing prohibited by law?

[Republica Newland]

No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?

*sigh*

Relax. Take a breath. Slow down and read it again.

I said that banning things isn't inherently a punishment, and that we ban all kinds of things, to make our lives liveable.

For example, murder. I'm saying you could argue that banning it (murder) is a punishment. If you argue that bans are inherently punitive.

Now slow down and look at that - you don't agree that banning murder is a punishment, do you?

So, logically - banning things isn't actually (inherently) a punishment.

Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?

And I'm saying that gun owners aren't inherently being 'punished' by a ban.

(Not that I'm pro-ban - I'm not. I'm just objecting to this line about bans being punishment).

Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.

Are you under the impression murder is the only thing prohibited by law?

Drugs are banned and there is no good from that.

[Grave_n_idle]

Drugs are banned and there is no good from that.

I fear we're heading into a hijack I don't intend to pursue too far.

The point is that banning things isn't inherently punitive. That banning things can be good.

The point is NOT 'hey, can you find an exception'.


That said - and while I do think we need to have a more permissive attitude towards recreational medication (depsite being straight-edge, myself) - banning drugs certainly does do some 'good'. The only question is whether it does it fairly and effectively.

For example - parents with kids in the house shouldn't be cracked out. That way leads to harm to children. So stopping people doing crack with kids in the house... is a good thing.

The question is - is it effective, is it fair?

[Fireye]

First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Aren't you about 40 pages too late for this post to be relevant?

[Republica Newland]

Drugs are banned and there is no good from that.

I fear we're heading into a hijack I don't intend to pursue too far.

The point is that banning things isn't inherently punitive. That banning things can be good.

The point is NOT 'hey, can you find an exception'.


That said - and while I do think we need to have a more permissive attitude towards recreational medication (depsite being straight-edge, myself) - banning drugs certainly does do some 'good'. The only question is whether it does it fairly and effectively.

For example - parents with kids in the house shouldn't be cracked out. That way leads to harm to children. So stopping people doing crack with kids in the house... is a good thing.

The question is - is it effective, is it fair?

No, you still don't get it. You're acting like I'm finding you exceptions from the general rule of banning being good, when I am in fact doing the exact opposite.

Do you even know how long a crack high lasts? Or rather, should I say, doesn't last? Thought so.

Even that being said, crack is still pretty god damn addictive. One could that argue that with lax laws and high quality cheap coke few would still be on the pipe.

EDIT: Also, stopping parents from doing crack is anywhere from miles to light years away from the war on drugs if somehow you were trying to defend it.

[Chernoslavia]

No. Illegal arms are one of the largest black market industries in the world. If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can. Making guns illegal for legal people will only reduce their chance to defend themselves.

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

The idea that banning guns is ''unsustainable'' and will lead to a permanent rise in the number of gun crimes and gun violence with tons of innocents killed is not supported by the empirical evidence. If that were true than we should be seeing ridiculous amounts of gun violence everywhere in the developed world except in America where people can ''defend themselves'' because guns are not banned.

Examples of "developed" countries with gun bans and gun crime:

China
Venezuela
Colombia
Russia
Jamaica
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa

And these are just few of many.

[Chernoslavia]

No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?

*sigh*

Relax. Take a breath. Slow down and read it again.

I said that banning things isn't inherently a punishment, and that we ban all kinds of things, to make our lives liveable.

For example, murder. I'm saying you could argue that banning it (murder) is a punishment. If you argue that bans are inherently punitive.

Now slow down and look at that - you don't agree that banning murder is a punishment, do you?

So, logically - banning things isn't actually (inherently) a punishment.

Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?

And I'm saying that gun owners aren't inherently being 'punished' by a ban.

(Not that I'm pro-ban - I'm not. I'm just objecting to this line about bans being punishment).

Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.

Are you under the impression murder is the only thing prohibited by law?

But banning something that can be used to protect people is punishment.

[Republica Newland]

Unsurprisingly, tight gun control hasn't done shit for the US either ; Gun Free Zones in schools and look how many massacres still. Chicago the gun control mecca is also among US' most violent cities.

Good job gun control!

[Chernoslavia]

Implying that all non democratic countries are shitty and undeveloped.

Name one modern non-democratic country that isn't.


Exactly.

Russia and China.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

More specifically, the express purpose of the Second Amendment is to promote marksmanship and gun care among the general population in case they need to be organized for defense.

Which is presumably why they let you keep making those catapults. In case you need to make artillery for defence.

That, and they can't get close enough to do anything about it without being blinded by a blueberry pie rain.

[Hornesia]

Which is presumably why they let you keep making those catapults. In case you need to make artillery for defence.

That, and they can't get close enough to do anything about it without being blinded by a blueberry pie rain.

They're also what we have to use until the burrito bomber is upgraded to tacos as well.

[Chernoslavia]

What I find WRONG about the US alws,if that you need to register Airsoft rifles.

Are you sure your not mistaking us for another country?

[Uieurnthlaal]

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

The idea that banning guns is ''unsustainable'' and will lead to a permanent rise in the number of gun crimes and gun violence with tons of innocents killed is not supported by the empirical evidence. If that were true than we should be seeing ridiculous amounts of gun violence everywhere in the developed world except in America where people can ''defend themselves'' because guns are not banned.

Examples of "developed" countries with gun bans and gun crime:

China
Venezuela
Colombia
Russia
Jamaica
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa

And these are just few of many.

I hope that's a joke. If it is, please say so, since it is impossible to tell on the internet whether people are crazy or just joking. If it's not a joke, than not a single one of those is considered particularly "developed".

[Chernoslavia]

Examples of "developed" countries with gun bans and gun crime:

China
Venezuela
Colombia
Russia
Jamaica
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa

And these are just few of many.

I hope that's a joke. If it is, please say so, since it is impossible to tell on the internet whether people are crazy or just joking. If it's not a joke, than not a single one of those is considered particularly "developed".

1. Define developed.

2. Whether a country is developed (whatever that's supposed to mean) or not isnt relevent.

[Uieurnthlaal]

I hope that's a joke. If it is, please say so, since it is impossible to tell on the internet whether people are crazy or just joking. If it's not a joke, than not a single one of those is considered particularly "developed".

1. Define developed.

2. Whether a country is developed (whatever that's supposed to mean) or not isnt relevent.

Developed. Do I have to define common knowledge to you? OK. D e v e l o p e d.
2. Of course it's relevant. If you live in Namibia, your going to have more crime than if you live in Iceland, because Namibia is much less developed. While Iceland has progressive policies in education welfare, and a fairly affluent, low-income-inequality populace, Namibia is a poor nation, with underdeveloped infrastructure, and a high level of economic inequality.