324 replies to this topic

[Corp]

Babe Ruth, on 21 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

That's a false argument Corp.  Nobody demands to have any of those things you mention, in real life.  So why are you worried about it, if nobody does it?

Actually some people do have old military equipment, but it has no weapons, but that's beside the point.

Your entire argument suggests that you have a miracle formula for the law, and how it might prevent some hypothetical crime of the future, and that is nonsense.  The law is NOT omnipotent.  Usually there are more unintended consequences than harmonious effects of the law's intended purpose.

The simple truth is that the gun control laws have failed miserably to stop gun violence.  How can you be intellectually honest by suggesting that one more law, or group of laws, are going to stop gun violence?

Babe please re-read my post. I clearly say that no one is asking for those things. My question is that if the whole point of having guns is so they can overthrow a tyranical government then why aren't they demanding these things? Why is having tanks illegal ok but banning guns like AR-15s opens the way to tyrany? A tank would give them a fighting chance while an AR-15 won't improve they chances that much.

Also I never said that gun laws would end gun crime. There will always be gun crime because humans like killing each other. It will always be high in the US in my view due to the cultural view on gun. However on the flip side gun laws aren't going to take away all your freedom. And if they can do some good, if they can perhaps lower gun crime, then shouldn't it be attempted instead of rejecting it outright? I honestly don't see why ensure that background checks are done on those buying guns is a bad thing. Some of the laws that are being put forward sound like things that should already be happening.

And for the record I don't have that big of an issue with guns and while I don't see why anyone would need something like an AR-15 other than as part of a collection I also don't see a ban on them doing much good. It's the massive hyperbole that surrounds the gun law debates in the US that I take issue with. How can on honest conversation happen when people are throwing around fear based lies? Gun owners aren't all murderers in waiting and the government isn't looking to take away all weapons so they can enslave the population. I just tend to hammer the extreme pro-gun crowd because they tend to be the most vocal.

[Czero 101]

Way to go, America!...

Lone Star College Shooting: Multiple People Shot At Texas College Campus

Quote

Multiple people have been shot at Lone Star College's North Harris campus in Houston, Texas, according to KPRC.

Police told KPRC least one person has been detained, but they have not said if that person is a suspected shooter. Another is on the loose.

Granted, details are slim at the moment, but any guesses as to how long before the NRA / Gun Lobby start downplaying THIS shooting, too?

ETA...

Quoting from the KRPC link above:

Quote

Some students said two men were involved in a dispute in the library and both pulled out guns and began firing at each other. Law enforcement officials have not confirmed those accounts.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 22 January 2013 - 07:58 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Corp, on 22 January 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Babe please re-read my post. I clearly say that no one is asking for those things. My question is that if the whole point of having guns is so they can overthrow a tyranical government then why aren't they demanding these things? Why is having tanks illegal ok but banning guns like AR-15s opens the way to tyrany? A tank would give them a fighting chance while an AR-15 won't improve they chances that much.

Also I never said that gun laws would end gun crime. There will always be gun crime because humans like killing each other. It will always be high in the US in my view due to the cultural view on gun. However on the flip side gun laws aren't going to take away all your freedom. And if they can do some good, if they can perhaps lower gun crime, then shouldn't it be attempted instead of rejecting it outright? I honestly don't see why ensure that background checks are done on those buying guns is a bad thing. Some of the laws that are being put forward sound like things that should already be happening.

And for the record I don't have that big of an issue with guns and while I don't see why anyone would need something like an AR-15 other than as part of a collection I also don't see a ban on them doing much good. It's the massive hyperbole that surrounds the gun law debates in the US that I take issue with. How can on honest conversation happen when people are throwing around fear based lies? Gun owners aren't all murderers in waiting and the government isn't looking to take away all weapons so they can enslave the population. I just tend to hammer the extreme pro-gun crowd because they tend to be the most vocal.

I agree with much of what you say.

People don't WANT to overthrow government.  They would like the ballot box to be as effective as we are told it is, in terms of actually controlling what government does.  Violent revolution is the last resort on anybody's list.  At least it is on mine.

I don't know why people are not demanding tanks and other advanced weaponry, but they are not.  Therefore, I find offering that as being a meaningful comparison, example, or debating point to be irrelevant, and somewhat desperate.

The argument that modern rifles should be banned is similar in thrust to saying that modern automobiles should also be banned because they are too fast and powerful.  It's like suggesting we should all go back to muskets and horse drawn carriages because that's what the modes were in 1787.  Just a silly argument it seems to me.

I'm very glad to hear you say that gun control laws will not cut crime.  I think really, that is the heart of the matter on the question of gun control.  But then the question remains, if we acknowledge that any given gun control measure (keeping in mind that we have hundreds of such laws) will not reduce crime, especially gun violence crimes, then why are we obligated to pass more such laws?  What do we really gain from doing that?

I think that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Unfortunately, those who really are avid gun owners (not me), including sports and other facets, feel threatened by all the rhetoric and proposals.  Somebody perfectly legal in possession of certain guns and accessories are facing the very real threat that tomorrow or next month they will be suddenly deemed criminals.

[DONTEATUS]

Great ! Now Babe Ruth wants a Tank and a 500 lb Gorilla to be in his army to protect his paranoia ! What next Babe ? Do you still feel the need to have out in the pubic AR-15`s and AKA `s RPG`s ? Do you even sleep at night ok ?

[Babe Ruth]

Only you Don, only you!  Staying right in character, attribute to me things I never said.

Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool by making such absurd posts?

[Corp]

As for why gun control gets brought out I can think of two reasons.

One is that some aspects of it do help against gun crime. Closing loopholes at gun shows, cracking down on shops that don't do proper background checks, improving safety features, and getting out more education is a good thing. It would help to ensure that gun owners can legally have a gun and properly respect it, as many already do. It's when you get into banning the type of guns and getting rid of features when things get hazy.

Two is because of public demand. When something horrible happens the public wants its elected officials to take action to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Thing is the public in general wants solutions right now. Telling them to wait a few decades so we get rid of those who treat a loaded gun as a paper weight isn't going to cut it. They want action now. So in comes gun control laws. They might not do much but they make the public feel better.

So there are parts of gun control laws that really don't make any actual difference other than give people a good feeling. However there are other parts that could be of a real benefit and might make a difference. That's why talk of gun control shouldn't be rejected as a whole.

[Babe Ruth]

Good post Corp.

On your second point, I think you've hit the nail on the head.  People want their government to ensure something does not happen again.  They are traumatized, and want their government to protect them.

That goes to what Mencken said in the last century, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

So it seems the intelligent citizen, and groups of intelligent citizens, should be asking themselves "Is the government actually capable of ensuring that it does not happen again?"

And in most cases, the resounding answer is "No, the government is not capable of ensuring it won't happen again."  That's my only point.

[ninjadude]

Babe Ruth, on 23 January 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

And in most cases, the resounding answer is "No, the government is not capable of ensuring it won't happen again."  That's my only point.

with notable exceptions like using seat belts, vaccines, elderly poverty, etc. We don't go in for black and white, all or nothing, but for greatly reduced. Life and government is a shade of grey. And in that vein, it would be possible for government to craft legislation to greatly reduce.

Edited by ninjadude, 24 January 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 23 January 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool by making such absurd posts?

Can't handle the competition, Babe....?






Cz

[AsteroidX]

If the rest of the world wants to give up there guns. Good on them. Not gonna happen in America. But just know soon your guns will be useless anyways.

https://www.youtube....ayer_detailpage

[Babe Ruth]

ninjadude, on 24 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

with notable exceptions like using seat belts, vaccines, elderly poverty, etc. We don't go in for black and white, all or nothing, but for greatly reduced. Life and government is a shade of grey. And in that vein, it would be possible for government to craft legislation to greatly reduce.

I completely agree with your sentiment sir.  And while it is possible that passing one more gun control law will magically make the other several hundred work, that is a major long shot.  Maybe 10 to the minus 10?