|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: OOOOOOOOOHHH , Boooyyy!
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:47:35 pm EDT (Viewed 76 times)
Reply Subj: Re: OOOOOOOOOHHH , Boooyyy!
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 12:43:00 pm EST (Viewed 74 times)
Um, NO IT CAN'T! AT ALL! Murder is obviously illegal for a reason. Bringing guns into a bar is not the same thing, especially because the owners have a say (Or appear to.).
Quote:just because we make murder legal doesn't mean people will do it can be justified by that same logic.
No, bar owners would not have a say. That's the whole point of the law. And you still haven't been able to say why my analogy is not apt.
It sounds like a stupid law, and I'm sure that those same some people lobbied a politician or something. It's still not MANDATORY, though, which means that people don't have to follow it. Again, just because people CAN, doesn't mean that people will.
Quote:why would anyone pass a law to allow guns into bars unless some people desired to bring guns into bars?
Your logic makes no sense. Of course SOME people will.
For god's sakes (This is being said by an agnostic.): WHAT are you missing here? You just jump from one point or assumption to another without any comprehension or logic to it.
Quote:So you're arguing that murder should be made legal?
So you can't answer the question.
It's the State, not the Government, but I can't imagine it being that popular or done the majority of the time.
Quote:Being mandatory has nothing to do with it being a bad idea.
The state is one level of government.
If it's a LEGAL product, yes.
Quote:So any time anyone can use something responsibly, then it shouldn't be made illegal?
That's an idiotic response because you're using a tautology.
Because those are Military weapons.
Quote:Yet you agreed that machine guns shouldn't be legal. Why not?
AR-15s are the equivalent to some military weapons, but you have no problem with those.
All stupid comparisons, none of them are or were ever legal (Or even AVAILABLE to.) to the general populations, nor are they a protected right.
Quote:You agreed nuclear weapons shouldn't be legal? Why not? How about grenades? Rocket launchers?
As soon as you agree that something can be too dangerous to be legal, it's just a matter of settling on what's too dangerous. Guns are arguably in that category. Anything that gives rise to 34,000-39,000 deaths a year is arguably very dangerous.
See above! And none of those are legal products. You used poor examples.
Quote:My point is simply that if something can be abused seriously enough, it's a moot point whether others can use that something responsibly and that can't be a reason to justify making something legal.
Stop using tautologies. The whole debate is over what SHOULD be legal. There are different levels of firepower with guns, grenades, rocket launchers. If you admit that some of these should be illegal, then all we're doing at this point is figuring out where to draw the line.
As a safety precaution and as a deterrent. Besides, it's not too hard to fire a gun, I would imagine.
Quote:If you buy a gun for protection, then you should have training. What would be the point of buying something for protection that you don't know how to use and you don't know how to keep yourself safe from?
Having a gun is NOT a safety precaution or a deterrent if you don't know how to use it. So you've never fired a gun? Your credibility is completely shot then because you have no idea what you're talking about. Firing a gun for someone who never has before is hard. You have to know how to use the safety, know how to load the weapon, know how to cock it, know the tension required to pull the trigger, know how much kickback to expect, know how to expel the shells,and know how to safely carry and store the weapon.
Quote:Given that YOU were the one who thought that my saying that if bars allow patrons with guns in them because it's legal that most people won't do it equates to you thinking that I'm saying that murder should be legal, I think that you're being totally hypocritical even asking that question.
You still haven't explained why the analogy is not apt.
But there are still cops who misuse their guns and use them for criminal purposes. And you wouldn't argue that cops should be prevented from getting guns because of this.
Quote:Police officers get training!
If enough police abused guns, then yes, cops should no longer be allowed to carry them. But only a small minority of cops do that. However, that analogy does not hold to gun owners at large unless you think 30,000+ deaths a year is acceptable.
How are they going to enforce this?
Quote:Of course it CAN be made mandatory
See what was done in Australia.
Let's just stick to this country for now, shall we?
Quote:Other countries have made it mandatory.
No. We've seen what works in other countries so we have models to follow.
Yet you called me retarded for arguing otherwise earlier.
Quote:They are not so different that training wouldn't make one a more responsible gun owner.
For arguing what earlier?
Sure, I don't.
Quote:You obviously have no idea how these things work.
I wasn't arguing that gun sales don't go up after certain incidents. I was arguing against your assumption that we'd all be dead if guns were the problem.
You're saying that it's unproven that POVERTY and crime and drugs go hand-in-hand together, or that poverty is a cause of crime? Are you seriously that out-of-touch with how the prison system works? Or do you not know that the economy impacts crime?
No. I was referring to your other point that "No amount of gun laws are going to help if you still have those conditions." That is a mere assertion unproven by you. If the U.S. adopted the toughest gun laws in the world and removed all guns, then that would still drastically reduce gun deaths regardless of poverty.
Sure, if there dangerous to OTHER people. Most addicts, etc, are only dangerous to themselves.
Quote:So you don't think there are things that are so dangerous that they should be outlawed
Really? So goods that are dangerous only to the person that buys them can't be so dangerous that they should be outlawed? That's ridiculous.
I think that you need to understand how self-defense is classified, recorded and reported.
Quote:Wrong. Less than 1% of intentional shootings are in self-defense
And you need to understand how to read the data.
It might lessen a few gun deaths, it still won't stop mass shootings or killings or criminals from getting guns.
Quote:It doesn't have to stop them altogether. If stricter gun laws reduced their number, that is something important right there.
A law doesn't have to stop all bad behavior to be worthwhile.
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|