Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 171

Thread: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Can the State regulate it? There's always freedom of assembly and association. The only legitimate claim I could think of by the government is if they deem them some form of revolutionary army as they are allowed to put down revolution. Meh, that's an aside anyway.

    As for the National Guard, I can see where and why you are deriving your definition, however, I would say that ideally they were to act as some form of State "militia" in some sense. But the Federal govenrment has usurped it well and now functionally it's basically an arm of the federal standing army. In which case makes it not a militia at all.
    No, the Federalist Papers explicitly state that the reason the people are free to own guns is that a tyrant may rise among them and command the militia to end their liberty, and the people will then have the means at hand to defend themselves and hopefully overthrow the would-be tyrant. Federalist 28, I think.

    Not to mention the fact that owning property is a basic human right, the freedom to choose, and firearms are nothing but a class of property.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Uh huh. And why is making things easier for robbers a compelling interest of the state? Did you have anything useful to say, or were you just trolling?
    It would encourage more people to exercise their constitutional right to own guns.

    Gee, you're not arguing that if the criminals suspect a home owner is armed they move on to someone else's house, are you?

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    For what reason? It seems to be selective incorporation of raw data that doesn't analyze the multiple variables that could alter crime rates and therefore doesn't actually measure the connection between firearm prevalence and crime. To do that, you'd need something like Duggan's More guns, more crime:



    Hmmm...the facts contradict poor Duggan.

    More guns, especially, CCW, less crime. Seems that criminals don't like being afraid of their possible victims. Clearly that's unfair and we should ban guns to make things easier on the poor hardworking thief.

  4. #114
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    It would encourage more people to exercise their constitutional right to own guns.
    And why is encouraging people to exercise their constitutional right a compelling interest of the state? Aren't you supposedly a libertarian?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Gee, you're not arguing that if the criminals suspect a home owner is armed they move on to someone else's house, are you?
    Then they can put a sign on their front door that says "I'm armed."
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And why is encouraging people to exercise their constitutional right a compelling interest of the state?
    That would lower the crime rate.

    Hey, abortion is a right, so we should fine women who don't abort.

  6. #116
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That would lower the crime rate.
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Hey, abortion is a right, so we should fine women who don't abort.
    I thought you were opposed to abortion.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How so?
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636]Amazon.com: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) (9780226493633): John R. Lott Jr.: Books[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I thought you were opposed to abortion.
    I'm opposed to forced-UHC, too, but apparently the left has no issue with forcing people to exercise their rights.

    If there's nothing wrong with forcing people to get insurance, then there's nothing wrong with forcing people to get a firearm.

    Maybe we should follow Obama's example and force people to practice a religion, too.

  8. #118
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    OK, let's temporarily accept the thesis that more guns means less crime:

    That's still very different from what is being proposed here. This is proposing to register non-gun owners. So how would this lower the crime rate? It would just direct the crime to the places where the criminals are the safest. What is the reasoning behind the argument that more guns means less crime: Isn't it the belief that more guns serve to dissuade criminals through the fear of getting shot by their would-be victims? If that is the case, this would actually RAISE crime, because it would completely eliminate that fear.

    Or are you suggesting that this will encourage more people to own guns? If that is the case, would the original thesis still hold? Is the mere act of owning a gun (even if you only own it because the state forces or "encourages" you to do so) enough to reduce crime? I would contend that the people on the margins, who would only own a gun with the government's "encouragement," are probably less likely than the average gun owner to confront a criminal with their gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I'm opposed to forced-UHC, too, but apparently the left has no issue with forcing people to exercise their rights.
    That isn't a matter of forcing you to exercise your rights, it's a matter of correcting an economic externality. I don't give two ****s if you choose to be irresponsible and not get health care when it's available to you...except you'll make the public and/or the hospital foot the bill when you get sick. Furthermore, ending price discrimination based on pre-existing conditions needs to be coupled with a mandate to prevent people from gaming the system and only signing up when they get sick. Anywho, let's stay on topic.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-03-09 at 01:14 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    OK, let's temporarily accept the thesis that more guns means less crime:

    That's still very different from what is being proposed here. This is proposing to register non-gun owners. So how would this lower the crime rate? It would just direct the crime to the places where the criminals are the safest.

    Or are you suggesting that this will encourage more people to own guns? If that is the case, would the original thesis still hold? Is the mere act of owning a gun (even if you only own it because the state forces or "encourages" you to do so) enough to reduce crime? I would contend that the people on the margins, who would not own a gun without the government's "encouragement" but would own a gun with the government's "encouragement," are probably less likely to confront a criminal with it...thus negating the entire point that guns reduce crime.



    That isn't a matter of forcing you to exercise your rights, it's a matter of correcting an economic externality. I don't give two ****s if you choose to be irresponsible and not get health care when it's available to you...except you'll make the public and/or the hospital foot the bill when you get sick. Furthermore, ending price discrimination based on pre-existing conditions needs to be coupled with a mandate to prevent people from gaming the system and only signing up when they get sick. Anywho, let's stay on topic.
    Well that's the point: not owning a gun costs the public more in combating crime.

    Since not doing something will cost everyone a little more, you should therefore be forced to do it.

  10. #120
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well that's the point: not owning a gun costs the public more in combating crime.
    If that's true, is it mere OWNERSHIP of a gun that reduces crime? Or is it the fear of someone USING the gun that reduces crime?

    The kind of people who don't want guns - but would get one at the government's "encouragement" - are probably the kind of people who will never fire it once in their life, will keep it locked in some inaccessible place, and may as well not have it at all. That doesn't do much to reduce crime. Government may be able to force/encourage someone to buy a gun, but they can't change their basic behavior.

    In fact, directing criminals to the homes where they're the safest would likely have the exact OPPOSITE effect on the crime rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Since not doing something will cost everyone a little more, you should therefore be forced to do it.
    Except this bill doesn't force anyone to own a gun. It just helps criminals find the easiest targets. Thus having the exact opposite effect of what you claim to want.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-03-09 at 01:25 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •