Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 171

Thread: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

  1. #121
    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
    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?
    Yes.

    Ownership instills a fear in others that you will use it, and that is a deterrent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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, may not even own any ammo for it, and may as well not even have it at all. That doesn't do much to reduce crime.
    They also sound like the kind of folks who would move away. I'm fine with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    In fact, directing criminals to the homes where they're the safest would likely have the exact OPPOSITE effect on the crime rate.
    Narrowing the list can only be a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    Crimes-of-opportunity bro, not some mastermind. Increasing the % of gun carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals in general.

    The left has established the premise that forcing people to exercise rights is acceptable if not exorcising those rights would cost the general population a tiny little bit more. Therefore we can substitute any right and apply the logic.

  2. #122
    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
    Yes.

    Ownership instills a fear in others that you will use it, and that is a deterrent.
    So hypothetically, if I buy a gun because of government prodding and bury it in the backyard of my apartment building because I don't actually want it, that's a deterrent? It's quite a logical leap from "People choosing to own guns deters criminals" to "Government prodding non-gun owners to buy guns deters criminals." Because it assumes that the kind of people who choose to own guns and the kind of people who need to be prodded will behave exactly the same...a highly dubious assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    They also sound like the kind of folks who would move away. I'm fine with that.
    And this is exactly what I suspect is the root of your argument: You don't really care about lowering the crime rate, you just want to stick it to people who don't own guns because you don't like them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Narrowing the list can only be a good thing.
    If you're a criminal, yes. Narrowing the list would be great. I'm hard-pressed to see what compelling public interest is being served by "narrowing the list" for criminals though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Crimes-of-opportunity bro, not some mastermind.
    I don't think you'd have to be a mastermind to go online and see who the registered non-gun owners were in your neighborhood, if you wanted to rob a house.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Increasing the % of gun carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals in general.
    What is the REASON that increasing the percentage of gun-carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals? Because the criminals are worried that those gun carrying citizens might actually use their guns.

    I think that argument has some merit when you're talking about eliminating government restrictions...but when you're talking about active government prodding, that's a different matter entirely. Someone who didn't get a gun on their own probably doesn't WANT a gun...and therefore is less likely to use it or threaten to use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The left has established the premise that forcing people to exercise rights is acceptable if not exorcising those rights would cost the general population a tiny little bit more. Therefore we can substitute any right and apply the logic.
    What you imagine "the left" believes is irrelevant to whether or not this bill actually makes any sense. Hint: It doesn't.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-03-09 at 01:49 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #123
    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
    So hypothetically, if I buy a gun because of government prodding and bury it in the backyard of my apartment building because I don't actually want it, that's a deterrent?
    No, that's a felony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And this is exactly what I suspect is the root of your argument: You don't really care about lowering the crime rate, you just want to stick it to people who don't own guns because you don't like them.
    No I want to stick it to people who support UHC. This gun law is exactly, literary what you are doing to me right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If you're a criminal, yes. Narrowing the list would be great. I'm hard-pressed to see what compelling public interest is being served by "narrowing the list" for criminals though.
    It lowers the crime rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't think you'd have to be a mastermind to go online and see who the registered non-gun owners were in your neighborhood, if you wanted to rob a house.
    You certainly don't have to be a mastermind to safely assume the owners of the home you want to rob don't own a firearm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What is the REASON that increasing the percentage of gun-carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals? Because the criminals are worried that those gun carrying citizens might actually use their guns.
    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I think that argument has some merit when you're talking about eliminating government restrictions...but when you're talking about active government prodding, that's a different matter entirely. Someone who didn't get a gun on their own probably doesn't WANT a gun...and therefore is less likely to use it or threaten to use it.
    Let the criminal roll the dice. Increasing the odds that the criminal will die reduces the frequency of those crimes. It's a pro-active death penalty.

    ***
    Someone who didn't get medical insurance on their own probably doesn't WANT a medical insurance...and therefore is less likely to use it.

  4. #124
    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
    No I want to stick it to people who support UHC. This gun law is exactly, literary what you are doing to me right now.
    So just to be clear: Do you actually support this bill, or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary? How does your advocacy of this bill "stick it to people who support UHC" anyway, other than your assumption that some of the same people who support UHC don't own guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    It lowers the crime rate.
    Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own guns and people who have to be PRODDED to buy a gun will behave the same way when confronted by a criminal. A highly dubious assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    You certainly don't have to be a mastermind to safely assume the owners of the home you want to rob don't own a firearm.
    Exactly. So why should the government be making it easier for criminals? And how would that not RAISE the crime rate, as it would completely ELIMINATE the criminal's fear of the victim's gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Let the criminal roll the dice. Increasing the odds that the criminal will die reduces the frequency of those crimes. It's a pro-active death penalty.
    Except you are advocating making it EASIER for the criminal to identify easy targets, thus accomplishing the exact opposite. It will decrease the odds that the criminal will die, and by the same logic, increase the frequency of those crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Someone who didn't get medical insurance on their own probably doesn't WANT a medical insurance...and therefore is less likely to use it.
    The difference is that eliminating the market externality in the case of health insurance is not necessarily dependent on your conscious choice to use the service or not (e.g. most people probably aren't concerned about their political philosophy when they've just been hit by a bus). Whereas in this case, it's ENTIRELY dependent on your behavior. It isn't the guns themselves that reduce the crime rate; it's the criminals' fear of their use. And if people who are forced to buy guns are not especially likely to use them, it won't do anything to reduce crime. It's ESPECIALLY stupid to point out the easy targets to the criminals; that will INCREASE crime and the cost to the public.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-03-09 at 03:00 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Owning a gun has absolutely nothing to do with being a member of a militia. Someone who knows how to accurately call in artillery is far more useful than someone who can shoot cans with a 10/22.
    You can't call in artillery when you're being overrun by infantry.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    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:



    It'd be nice if I could actually examine this study in detail. However, I can already determine by the language used in the abstract that the evidence is strictly correlative. Certainly not definitive proof of anything.

  7. #127
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    See gun laws vs. crime rate Kennesaw Ga..

    Those that broadcast their non-gun ownership are a liability to LEOs and the Republic, and in conflict with the Constitution.

    Like Big AL says: "the debate is OVER!"

  8. #128
    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
    So just to be clear: Do you actually support this bill, or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary? How does your advocacy of this bill "stick it to people who support UHC" anyway, other than your assumption that some of the same people who support UHC don't own guns?
    The 2nd Amendment threads don't get much action, but thinking back on it I believe I've always supported mandatory gun ownership, Universal Gun Car and fire arms safety training taught in the high-school right along with first-aid certification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own guns and people who have to be PRODDED to buy a gun will behave the same way when confronted by a criminal. A highly dubious assumption.
    Let me turn this back on you to illustrate an anti-UHC position:
    Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own medical insurance and people who have to be PRODDED to buy medical insurance will behave the same way when confronted by an injury or disease. A highly dubious assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Exactly. So why should the government be making it easier for criminals? And how would that not RAISE the crime rate, as it would completely ELIMINATE the criminal's fear of the victim's gun?
    Keep in mind that it's the criminal (hard to distinguish from the government, I know, but stay with me here)...it's the criminal who is costing the government money and thus causing the problem. Anyone who believes they are in increased danger due to being on the list, can buy a gun for less than the fine and get off the list.

    IMO the average citizen should be legally compelled to own a firearm just as every citizen should serve in the military (not "civil service", but the military).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Except you are advocating making it EASIER for the criminal to identify easy targets, thus accomplishing the exact opposite. It will decrease the odds that the criminal will die, and by the same logic, increase the frequency of those crimes.
    Every time gun-ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down. Every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The difference is that eliminating the market externality in the case of health insurance is not necessarily dependent on your conscious choice to use the service or not (e.g. most people probably aren't concerned about their political philosophy when they've just been hit by a bus). Whereas in this case, it's ENTIRELY dependent on your behavior. It isn't the guns themselves that reduce the crime rate; it's the criminals' fear of their use. And if people who are forced to buy guns are not especially likely to use them, it won't do anything to reduce crime.
    There's only one way for a criminal to find out if a gun owner won't use it....as I said, let the criminal roll the dice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's ESPECIALLY stupid to point out the easy targets to the criminals; that will INCREASE crime and the cost to the public.
    I'll grant you the point that where firearm ownership has reduced crime before, I don't know that a non-gun owner list existed. I don't know of an example I could point to and say "here's a state that has the list and the crime rate still went down".

    However, since I support mandatory gun ownership per-se as it does lower the crime rate, I'm going to seriously support this bill anyway. If you don't like the list, go buy a gun.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, that's registering your property. The gun is linked to you in case of a crime. If, on the other hand, the police wanted a database of everyone in the area who owned a gun, and wanted to search it for possible suspects, I would be opposed to that.
    That's exactly what you called for. You've performed illegal search on my property, and databased all my information. You think they can't search on a name in a database? If all the guns I have are registered with my personal information attached, they can search on my name and come up with all the guns I own.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #130
    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
    The 2nd Amendment threads don't get much action, but thinking back on it I believe I've always supported mandatory gun ownership, Universal Gun Car and fire arms safety training taught in the high-school right along with first-aid certification.
    Why? What's the point in forcing someone to own a gun if they aren't going to use it should the need ever arise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Let me turn this back on you to illustrate an anti-UHC position:
    Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own medical insurance and people who have to be PRODDED to buy medical insurance will behave the same way when confronted by an injury or disease. A highly dubious assumption.
    You don't think that people who have to be prodded to buy health insurance will go to the ER when they have an emergency? If that were the case, then there wouldn't be a problem of people using it and sticking someone else with the bill in the first place.

    On the other hand, the argument that guns deter criminals is ENTIRELY dependent on the behavior of the gun-owners. Imagine a world where everyone owned a gun, but no one ever confronted criminals with them. Do you think that would deter criminals? Of course not; the people might as well not have the gun at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Keep in mind that it's the criminal (hard to distinguish from the government, I know, but stay with me here)...it's the criminal who is costing the government money and thus causing the problem. Anyone who believes they are in increased danger due to being on the list, can buy a gun for less than the fine and get off the list.
    Then you aren't actually reducing crime, you're just shifting it to the most vulnerable people and imposing an additional cost on others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Every time gun-ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down. Every time.
    Almost any example you can cite is an example of eliminating BARRIERS to gun ownership, not active government prodding in FAVOR of gun ownership. You have absolutely no evidence that the crime rate will go down if the government encourages people to buy guns who have no stomach for, or interest in, guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    There's only one way for a criminal to find out if a gun owner won't use it....as I said, let the criminal roll the dice.
    The criminal can "roll the dice" on whether the homeowner has a gun at all WITHOUT this list. As it is, you're making it nice and easy for him to AVOID rolling the dice.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •